[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Bax India Ventures Private Limited vs Central Processing Centre on 2 February, 2026
Author: B. P. Colabawalla
Bench: B. P. Colabawalla
sr. 50-wp(l)-43004-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TRUSHA
TUSHAR ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
MOHITE
Digitally signed by
TRUSHA TUSHAR
MOHITE
Date: 2026.02.05
12:28:24 +0530
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 43004 OF 2025
Bax India Ventures Pvt. Ltd. .. Applicant.
Versus
Central Processing Centre & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. P. J. Pardiwalla, Senior Advocate a/w Adv. Jeet Kamdar, i/b Adv.
Atul K. Jasani for the Petitioner.
Adv. Vikas T. Khanchandani for the Respondents.
CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2026
P. C.
1. The above Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the
intimation dated 1st December, 2025 ('Exhibit H' to the Petition) issued under
Section 143 (1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "IT Act"). The short
ground on which the aforesaid intimation is challenged is that it does not
comply with the provisions of Section 143(1)(a).
2. It is the case of the Petitioner that before any adjustment is
made, as more particularly stipulated in Section 143(1)(a), an intimation is to
FEBRUARY 2, 2026
Mansi shelke
sr. 50-wp(l)-43004-2025.doc
be given to the assessee of such adjustment either in writing or in electronic
mode and also the response received from the assessee, if any, has to be
considered before making any adjustment. In case no response is received
from the assessee within 30 days of the issue of such intimation, adjustments
can be made under Section 143(1)(a).
3. According to the Petitioner, in the facts of the present case,
admittedly no such intimation was given prior to making the adjustment.
Once this is the case, the intimation order passed under Section 143(1)(a) is
unsustainable and has to be set aside. It is on this short ground that the
Petitioner assails the intimation order dated 1 st December, 2025 issued under
Section 143(1)(a).
4. The Revenue has filed its Affidavit-in-Reply in which it is inter
alia contended that in the facts of the present case, the assessee had claimed
the benefit of Section 115BAA of the IT Act. To avail the benefits of this
Section, it was mandatory for the assessee to file Form 10-IC by the due date
of filing of the Return of Income under Section 139(1) of the IT Act.
Admittedly, the Return was filed by the assessee belatedly on 28 th March,
2025, under Section 139(8A), along with Form 10-IC. Since Form 10-IC was
FEBRUARY 2, 2026
Mansi shelke
sr. 50-wp(l)-43004-2025.doc
not filed by the due date as contemplated under Section 139(1) of the IT Act,
the adjustment was made by the CPC under Section 143(1)(a).
5. According to the Revenue, once this is the case, there is no
provision prescribed in Section 115BAA to provide an opportunity to the
assessee if the prescribed Form 10-IC is not filed. An opportunity is required
to be provided to the assessee only where prima-facie adjustment is made to
the total income or loss declared while processing the Return of Income as
specified in the first proviso to Section 143(1)(a). In this case, not allowing the
beneficial tax rate prescribed under Section 115BAA, does not fall under the
provisions of Section 143(1)(a), because no addition is made to the total
income declared. Consequently, no opportunity needs to be provided to the
tax payer as contemplated under the first and second proviso of Section
143(1)(a). In other words, it was submitted that even if an opportunity was
provided to the assessee, since it had failed to file the Return along with Form
10-IC by the due date as mentioned under Section 139(1), no alternative was
left for the Department but to levy tax at the normal rate. Hence, according to
the Department, in the facts of the present case, issuing any intimation to the
assessee prior to passing an intimation order under Section 143(1)(a) would
be an exercise in futility. Consequently, it was submitted that there is no
merit in the Writ Petition and the same be dismissed.
FEBRUARY 2, 2026
Mansi shelke
sr. 50-wp(l)-43004-2025.doc
6. We have heard Mr. Pardiwalla, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, as well as the learned Advocate
appearing on behalf of the Revenue.
7. Section 143, in so far as is relevant for our purposes, reads as
under :
"Assessment
143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in
response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such
return shall be processed in the following manner, namely:-
( a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the
following adjustments, namely:-
(i) any arithmetical error in the return;
(ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent
from any information in the return;
(iia) any such inconsistency in the return, with respect to
the information in the return of any preceding previous
year, as may be prescribed;
(ⅲ) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous
year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished
beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of
section 139;
(iv) disallowance of expenditure [or increase in income]
indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in
computing the total income in the return;
(v) disallowance of deduction claimed under [section 10AA
FEBRUARY 2, 2026
Mansi shelke
sr. 50-wp(l)-43004-2025.doc
or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the
heading "C-Deductions in respect of certain incomes" if]
the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under
sub-section (1) of section 139; or
(vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form
16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing
the total income in the return:
Provided that no such adjustments shall be made unless an
intimation is given to the assessee of such adjustments
either in writing or in electronic mode:
Provided further that the response received from the
assessee, if any, shall be considered before making any
adjustment, and in a case where no response is received
within thirty days of the issue of such intimation, such
adjustments shall be made:
Provided also that no adjustment shall be made under sub-
clause (vi) in relation to a return furnished for the
assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of
April, 2018;"
8. As can be seen from the aforesaid reproduction, it is mandated
by the legislature that, before any adjustment is made under Section 143(1)
(a), an intimation is to be given to the assessee of such adjustment, either in
writing or in electronic mode. This is clearly stipulated by the first proviso to
Section 143(1)(a). The second proviso to Section 143(1)(a) further stipulates
that the response received from the assessee, if any, to any intimation issued
under the first proviso, has to be considered before making any adjustment.
FEBRUARY 2, 2026
Mansi shelke
sr. 50-wp(l)-43004-2025.doc
In a case where no response is received from the assessee within 30 days,
then such adjustment can be made by the Department.
9. In the facts of the present case, admittedly, no intimation was
given to the assessee as contemplated in the first proviso to Section 143 (1)
(a). The first proviso, in our opinion, is clearly mandatory in nature, as it
clearly stipulates that no adjustment 'shall be made' unless an intimation is
given to the assessee of such adjustment either in writing or in electronic
mode. Once this is a mandatory provision, no intimation order under Section
143(1)(a) can be passed, making any adjustment in the Return of Income filed
by the assessee, unless such proposed adjustment is first intimated to the
assessee and he has been given a chance to respond thereto.
10. As mentioned earlier, in the facts of the present case, no
intimation as contemplated under the first proviso to Section 143(1)(a) was
ever issued to the Petitioner. This is an undisputed fact. On this ground
alone, the intimation order dated 1 st December, 2025, issued under Section
143(1)(a), is liable to be quashed and set aside. We are unable to agree with
the submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue
that this exercise would be an exercise in futility because in the facts of the
present case, admittedly, Form 10-IC was not filed by the due date. There
FEBRUARY 2, 2026
Mansi shelke
sr. 50-wp(l)-43004-2025.doc
could very well be a case where, after belatedly filing a return and belatedly
filing Form 10-IC, and before the intimation order is passed under Section
143 (1)(a), the Petitioner could have obtained an order seeking condonation
of delay in filing form 10-IC under Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act. This could
possibly be the response that the assessee may give to the CPC in respect of
the notice issued under the first proviso to Section 143(1)(a) and contend that
the proposed adjustment ought not to be made. It is therefore incorrect to
suggest that the intimation proposing an adjustment, as contemplated under
the first proviso to Section 143(1)(a), would be an exercise in futility. Once we
find that the said provision is mandatory in nature, the same has to be
complied with by the Revenue. The Revenue cannot decide in which case it
would be futile and in which case it would not.
11. In the conclusion we have reached, we find support from our
Judgement in Rallis India Limited Vs. Central Processing Centre [Writ
Petition (L) No. 37314 of 2025]. Paragraph 11 of the said Judgement is
relevant and reads as under :
"11. It is apparent from a perusal of the above reproduction that
the first and second proviso to Section 143(1) of the IT Act
specifically provides that no adjustment shall be made unless an
assessee is given an intimation of the adjustment either in
writing or in electronic mode and the response received from the
assessee must be considered before making any such adjustment.
FEBRUARY 2, 2026
Mansi shelke
sr. 50-wp(l)-43004-2025.doc
In the present case, admittedly the Petitioner has not been given
any intimation of the ICDS adjustment before passing the
impugned intimation. The proposed adjustment under Section
143(1)(a) of the IT Act on 14 December 2022 did not raise any
issue with regard to the ICDS adjustment of Rs.
1284,66,97,880/-, and no opportunity of being heard was
granted to the Petitioner on this issue before the intimation was
passed. This is, therefore, a clear breach of the principles of
natural justice, and in any event in contravention of the
jurisdictional requirements laid down in the first and second
proviso to Section 143(1) of the IT Act. Further, the department
in their Affidavit-in-reply have accepted the fact that no notice
for the proposed adjustment was issued on the ICDS adjustment.
Hence, on this ground alone the adjustment made in the
intimation in respect of the ICDS adjustment of Rs.
1284,66,97,880/- is liable to be quashed and set aside."
12. In view of this foregoing discussion, the Petition succeeds and is
allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which read thus :
"(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of
Certiorari or any other writ order or direction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the case
leading to passing of the impugned intimation order and after
going through the same and examining the question of legality
thereof quash, cancel and set aside the additions in the
impugned intimation order dated December 1, 2025 (Exhibit-
H):"
FEBRUARY 2, 2026
Mansi shelke
sr. 50-wp(l)-43004-2025.doc
13. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, and the Writ
Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no order
as to costs.
14. We may hasten to add that the Revenue is free to now issue a
notice to the assessee as contemplated under the first proviso to Section
143(1)(a) as well as take the response of the Petitioner, if any, into the
consideration, and only thereafter pass a fresh intimation order as
contemplated under Section 143(1)(a).
15. Mr. Pardiwalla, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the Petitioner, stated that, in light of this Order, the Petitioner undertakes
to withdraw the Appeal filed by the Petitioner against the intimation order
dated 1st December, 2025 before the CIT (Appeals). He states that the said
Appeal shall be withdrawn within a period of two weeks from today. The said
statement is accepted as an undertaking given to the Court.
16. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/
Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax
or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]
FEBRUARY 2, 2026
Mansi shelke
