CPC issued the section 143(1)(a) notice and passed the intimation a week later, and the portal shows a response I never filed. Is that intimation valid?
No. The Delhi Tribunal held that the intimation under section 143(1) dated 30 March 2019 was bad in law because the adjustment was made seven days after the notice of proposed adjustment issued on 23 March 2019, long before the thirty days allowed for a response had run. The proviso requires that any response be considered, and that adjustments be made only where no response is received within thirty days of the issue of the notice. The Tribunal did not accept the portal entry showing a response filed on the very day the notice issued, preferring the assessee's screenshots and affidavit. The disallowance of Rs. 74,08,038 was deleted.
Decided by the ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi - Shri Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member and Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Accountant Member (order authored by Brajesh Kumar Singh, AM)) on 2025-06-06, reported as ITA No. 2183/Del/2023, assessment year 2017-18; [2025] 176 taxmann.com 764 (Delhi - Trib.). It bears on section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny matters.
Almost every practitioner has seen a CPC intimation land within days of the section 143(1)(a) notice, and has then been told that the portal shows a response was filed. This order does two useful things about that. It treats the thirty-day period as a real condition on the power to adjust, not a formality that a nil response can waive, so an intimation passed inside the window is bad regardless of what the adjustment was about. And it shows how the portal record can be displaced: the assessee produced screenshots showing the row still read 'submit response', compared them with a later year where a response really had been filed and the row read 'view response', and supported both with a director's affidavit. That is a template for proving a negative against the Department's own system.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
For assessment year 2017-18 the Centralised Processing Centre issued a notice of proposed adjustment under section 143(1)(a) on 23 March 2019 and passed the intimation under section 143(1) on 30 March 2019, seven days later. The adjustment disallowed Rs. 74,08,038. The assessee's case was that it had never filed any response to the notice, and that the intimation had therefore been passed without waiting out the thirty days the proviso allows. The Department pointed to the record on the income-tax portal, which showed a response submitted date of 23 March 2019, the very day the notice issued. To displace that entry the assessee filed an affidavit of its director dated 6 May 2024 together with screenshots of the portal, which showed that for this notice the row still read 'submit response' rather than 'view response'. It produced a comparison screenshot from assessment year 2022-23, where a response had in fact been filed, in which the same field read 'view response'. The additional ground on the thirty days was taken before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the additional ground. It held that the intimation under section 143(1) dated 30 March 2019 was bad in law because it was passed on the seventh day after the notice of proposed adjustment, whereas the thirty days allowed for a response would have expired only on 22 April 2019. The proviso to section 143(1)(a) requires the response received from the assessee, if any, to be considered before any adjustment is made, and permits the adjustment to be made where no response is received only after thirty days of the issue of the notice. Neither limb was satisfied. On the factual dispute the Tribunal accepted the assessee's evidence that no response had been filed, holding that the portal entry showing a response submitted on 23 March 2019 was not reliable in the face of the screenshots and the director's affidavit, and that the display of 'submit response' rather than 'view response' bore out the assessee's case. Having struck down the intimation, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs. 74,08,038 in full.
The Tribunal read the proviso to section 143(1)(a) as laying down a sequence rather than a formality. The Centralised Processing Centre must first intimate the proposed adjustment. It must then either consider the response, if one comes, or wait until thirty days from the issue of the notice have passed without a response. Only then may it make the adjustment. Because the intimation here issued on the seventh day, neither condition was met, and the power to adjust had not arisen. That disposed of the appeal without any need to examine the merits of the disallowance. The Department's answer rested entirely on the portal, which recorded a response as submitted on 23 March 2019. The Tribunal treated that as a question of evidence rather than of presumption. The date recorded was the same date on which the notice was issued, which itself sat uneasily with the ordinary working of the system; the screenshots showed the row for that notice still offering the option to submit a response, which it would not do if a response had been filed; and the comparison with assessment year 2022-23, where the same field read 'view response' after a response had genuinely been made, showed what the portal displays when a response exists. Supported by the director's affidavit, that material was enough to displace the entry, and the Tribunal proceeded on the footing that no response had been filed.
Therefore, relying on the above decision, we hold that intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 30.03.2019 is bad in law.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. The Delhi Tribunal held that the intimation under section 143(1) dated 30 March 2019 was bad in law because the adjustment was made seven days after the notice of proposed adjustment issued on 23 March 2019, long before the thirty days allowed for a response had run. The proviso requires that any response be considered, and that adjustments be made only where no response is received within thirty days of the issue of the notice. The Tribunal did not accept the portal entry showing a response filed on the very day the notice issued, preferring the assessee's screenshots and affidavit. The disallowance of Rs. 74,08,038 was deleted. This was decided by the ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi - Shri Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member and Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Accountant Member (order authored by Brajesh Kumar Singh, AM)) and bears on section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No. 2183/Del/2023, assessment year 2017-18; [2025] 176 taxmann.com 764 (Delhi - Trib.). Almost every practitioner has seen a CPC intimation land within days of the section 143(1)(a) notice, and has then been told that the portal shows a response was filed. This order does two useful things about that. It treats the thirty-day period as a real condition on the power to adjust, not a formality that a nil response can waive, so an intimation passed inside the window is bad regardless of what the adjustment was about. And it shows how the portal record can be displaced: the assessee produced screenshots showing the row still read 'submit response', compared them with a later year where a response really had been filed and the row read 'view response', and supported both with a director's affidavit. That is a template for proving a negative against the Department's own system. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Take the screenshot of the e-proceedings row as soon as a section 143(1)(a) notice appears, and again after the intimation, because the portal state is the evidence.
For assessment year 2017-18 the Centralised Processing Centre issued a notice of proposed adjustment under section 143(1)(a) on 23 March 2019 and passed the intimation under section 143(1) on 30 March 2019, seven days later. The adjustment disallowed Rs. 74,08,038. The assessee's case was that it had never filed any response to the notice, and that the intimation had therefore been passed without waiting out the thirty days the proviso allows. The Department pointed to the record on the income-tax portal, which showed a response submitted date of 23 March 2019, the very day the notice issued. To displace that entry the assessee filed an affidavit of its director dated 6 May 2024 together with screenshots of the portal, which showed that for this notice the row still read 'submit response' rather than 'view response'. It produced a comparison screenshot from assessment year 2022-23, where a response had in fact been filed, in which the same field read 'view response'. The additional ground on the thirty days was taken before the Tribunal. The matter was decided on 2025-06-06 by the ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi - Shri Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member and Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Accountant Member (order authored by Brajesh Kumar Singh, AM)). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the additional ground. It held that the intimation under section 143(1) dated 30 March 2019 was bad in law because it was passed on the seventh day after the notice of proposed adjustment, whereas the thirty days allowed for a response would have expired only on 22 April 2019. The proviso to section 143(1)(a) requires the response received from the assessee, if any, to be considered before any adjustment is made, and permits the adjustment to be made where no response is received only after thirty days of the issue of the notice. Neither limb was satisfied. On the factual dispute the Tribunal accepted the assessee's evidence that no response had been filed, holding that the portal entry showing a response submitted on 23 March 2019 was not reliable in the face of the screenshots and the director's affidavit, and that the display of 'submit response' rather than 'view response' bore out the assessee's case. Having struck down the intimation, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs. 74,08,038 in full.
The Tribunal read the proviso to section 143(1)(a) as laying down a sequence rather than a formality. The Centralised Processing Centre must first intimate the proposed adjustment. It must then either consider the response, if one comes, or wait until thirty days from the issue of the notice have passed without a response. Only then may it make the adjustment. Because the intimation here issued on the seventh day, neither condition was met, and the power to adjust had not arisen. That disposed of the appeal without any need to examine the merits of the disallowance. The Department's answer rested entirely on the portal, which recorded a response as submitted on 23 March 2019. The Tribunal treated that as a question of evidence rather than of presumption. The date recorded was the same date on which the notice was issued, which itself sat uneasily with the ordinary working of the system; the screenshots showed the row for that notice still offering the option to submit a response, which it would not do if a response had been filed; and the comparison with assessment year 2022-23, where the same field read 'view response' after a response had genuinely been made, showed what the portal displays when a response exists. Supported by the director's affidavit, that material was enough to displace the entry, and the Tribunal proceeded on the footing that no response had been filed. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Therefore, relying on the above decision, we hold that intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 30.03.2019 is bad in law." The decision followed or applied Aashirvad Villa Limited v. ITO.
It was decided by the ITAT on 2025-06-06 and is reported as ITA No. 2183/Del/2023, assessment year 2017-18; [2025] 176 taxmann.com 764 (Delhi - Trib.). Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 143(1)(a), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the additional ground. It held that the intimation under section 143(1) dated 30 March 2019 was bad in law because it was passed on the seventh day after the notice of proposed adjustment, whereas the thirty days allowed for a response would have expired only on 22 April 2019. The proviso to section 143(1)(a) requires the response received from the assessee, if any, to be considered before any adjustment is made, and permits the adjustment to be made where no response is received only after thirty days of the issue of the notice. Neither limb was satisfied. On the factual dispute the Tribunal accepted the assessee's evidence that no response had been filed, holding that the portal entry showing a response submitted on 23 March 2019 was not reliable in the face of the screenshots and the director's affidavit, and that the display of 'submit response' rather than 'view response' bore out the assessee's case. Having struck down the intimation, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs. 74,08,038 in full. It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny matters, on section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi - Shri Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member and Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Accountant Member (order authored by Brajesh Kumar Singh, AM). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Compare the disputed year against a year in which you did respond, so the difference in what the portal displays is on record. Support the screenshots with an affidavit from the person who operates the portal login. Raise the thirty-day point as an additional ground before the Tribunal if it was not taken earlier - it goes to the validity of the intimation, not to the merits of the adjustment.
Validity check could not be completed. The order is recent and nothing citing or doubting it was found. No appeal against it has been traced. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The input record listed sections 36(1)(va) and 37(1) as well. I could not establish from the text which heads made up the disallowance of Rs. 74,08,038, so I have listed only section 143(1)(a), which is what the order turns on. The order refers to a decision it relied on for the thirty-day proposition without my being able to identify it from the text I read. The order was read in the reproduction on Indian Kanoon; the Tribunal's own site could not be reached from this machine. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the additional ground. It held that the intimation under section 143(1) dated 30 March 2019 was bad in law because it was passed on the seventh day after the notice of proposed adjustment, whereas the thirty days allowed for a response would have expired only on 22 April 2019. The proviso to section 143(1)(a) requires the response received from the assessee, if any, to be considered before any adjustment is made, and permits the adjustment to be made where no response is received only after thirty days of the issue of the notice. Neither limb was satisfied. On the factual dispute the Tribunal accepted the assessee's evidence that no response had been filed, holding that the portal entry showing a response submitted on 23 March 2019 was not reliable in the face of the screenshots and the director's affidavit, and that the display of 'submit response' rather than 'view response' bore out the assessee's case. Having struck down the intimation, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs. 74,08,038 in full.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
My return was only processed under 143(1). Does that stop the department reopening it later?
CPC disallowed my late-deposited PF and ESI under 143(1)(a). Was a summary adjustment even open to them?
Same point, in Delhi: if the recorded grounds fail, can the officer still tax an unrelated item?
The Assessing Officer has issued a section 154 notice to rectify my section 143(1)(a) intimation after a scrutiny notice under section 143(2) was already served. Can he do that?