JUDGMENT
Srikrishna, J.
1. This writ petition impugns an order of intimation dated January 30, 1990, issued under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. The petitioner-bank returned a total income of Rs. 16,86,48,302 as its total income during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1989-90. The petitioner had not included in its return a sum of Rs. 2,30,11,856 towards interest on securities as, according to the petitioner, the said amount was not taxable either in the assessment year 1988-89 or in the assessment year 1989-90. A note explaining why this amount was not included in the return for the assessment year 1989-90 was also attached to the return.
3. The petitioner applied for rectification under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, and, having failed therein, carried an appeal to the commissioner of Income-tax. The petitioner’s appeal also came to be dismissed by the commissioner of Income-tax an order dated January 28, 1991. The contention advanced during the rectification proceedings under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, and in appeal before the Commissioner, was that the Assessing Officer was in error in adjusting the amount of Rs. 2,30,11,856 as such adjustment did not fall within the purview of section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. Curiously enough though the Commissioner accepted this contention as prima facie correct, he proceeded to consider the matter on the merits and took a view adverse to the petitioners and consequently dismissed the appeal.
4. Section 143(1)(a) provides for issuance of an intimation and the first proviso thereto specifically enumerates the circumstances under which such adjustments are permissible. The only relevant clause would be clause (iii) of the first proviso which provides that, in the event of there being any loss carried forward, deduction, allowance or relief claimed in the return, which, on the basis of the information available in such return, accounts or documents, is prima facie, inadmissible, then such amount shall be disallowed.
5. In the case of the petitioner, however, it is obvious that the amount of Rs. 2,30,11,856 was not an amount falling within any of the items enumerated under the first proviso to section 143(1)(a). The Assessing Officer, therefore, clearly had no jurisdiction to make any such adjustment by adding the aforesaid sum to the total income. (See in this connection a decision of a Division Bench of this court to which one of us (Mrs. Sujata Manohar J.) was a party in Khatau Junkar Ltd. v. K. S. Pathania [1992] 196 ITR 55). The impugned intimation dated January 30, 1990, is therefor, without jurisdiction and is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the additional tax claimed from the petitioner is without authority and is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents shall issue a fresh intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, in accordance with law as laid down by the above judgment and grant to the petitioner refund, if and as found admissible.
6. Since the intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act was itself without jurisdiction and is being set aside the further proceedings thereupon under section 154 and appeal therefrom are without consequences and any findings made therein shall not operate to the prejudice of either party.
7. In the result, the petition is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). However, there will be no order as to costs.