Who can respond to a Section 143(1) intimation mismatch, and how? Taxpayer, signatory or authorised CA, the right portal route, deadlines and mistakes.
A response to a mismatch in an intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be filed on the income tax e-filing portal by the taxpayer himself, or in the case of a company, LLP or HUF by its authorised signatory i.e. the director, designated partner or karta, as the case may be, and a chartered accountant, advocate or other person eligible under Section 288 of the 1961 Act can also respond on behalf of the taxpayer, provided the taxpayer has added such person as an Authorised Representative on the portal and the said person has accepted the authorisation. It may be noted that a person who has not been so authorised on the portal cannot file a valid response, howsoever qualified he may be.
Take the case of a Gurugram based consultant who files her return of income expecting a refund of Rs. 2.1 lakh. A few months thereafter the intimation received from the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) shows the refund at Rs. 38,000 only, inasmuch as an entry of interest on fixed deposit reflected in her Annual Information Statement (AIS) has been added to her income and the TDS deducted by one of her clients has not been credited at all. The mistake is capable of being corrected, however the question which arises is as to who can file the response, through which route and within what time, since a response filed by the wrong person or by way of the wrong remedy does not count.
The intimation under Section 143(1) is in the nature of a communication sent by the CPC on completion of the processing of the return, and is not an assessment in the strict sense of the term. In so far as the adjustments are concerned, the CPC can correct any arithmetical error in the return and any claim which is incorrect on the face of the return, and it can also disallow a loss carried forward wrongly or claimed after the due date, an expense which the audit report shows as disallowable but which the assessee has claimed nonetheless, and a deduction which is not available where the return has been filed belatedly. It may further add income which is reflected in Form 26AS, the AIS or a TDS certificate but which has not been offered in the return.
It is pertinent to note that before making any adjustment which increases the tax payable or reduces the refund, the CPC is required under Section 143(1)(a) to intimate the proposed prima facie adjustment to the assessee and allow him 30 days to respond, and this notice is distinct from the final intimation, which is generally issued within nine months from the end of the financial year in which the return was filed. The said prior notice is not a mere formality, inasmuch as the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata has held that an adjustment made by the CPC without issuing such notice is invalid, and in the event no such notice was received, the e-Proceedings tab and the e-mail history ought to be checked and the absence of the notice specifically raised in the response.
Intimations in respect of returns filed up to FY 2025-26 are governed by the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereas the Income-tax Act, 2025 applies from tax year 2026-27 and renumbers a large number of sections, and the section numbers applicable to the relevant year are therefore required to be verified.
An individual may log in and respond himself or authorise a representative, whereas in the case of an HUF the response is to be filed by the karta or by a representative acting on behalf of the karta. In the case of a company, the director or authorised signatory files the response and verifies the same through a digital signature certificate or EVC, as required by the portal, and an LLP or a firm responds in the same manner through a designated or authorised partner, while in the case of a trust or other entity the trustee or the person in charge is to respond.
Any taxpayer may, in the alternative, authorise a chartered accountant, advocate, tax return preparer, employee or relative to act on his behalf, the persons eligible to be appointed as authorised representative being laid down in Section 288 of the 1961 Act. As regards the procedure on the portal, the taxpayer adds the person under the "Authorised Representative" option, whereafter upon acceptance by such person the case appears in his own login under "As Authorised Representative".
A response filed by any person who has not been registered in this manner is not valid. It has been noticed that in some cases the consultant logs in with the password of the client in order to get around this requirement, which practice is not advisable at all, inasmuch as no record remains as to who had actually filed the response and it is the credentials of the client which are put at risk.
The mismatches noticed in practice generally fall into a few categories, namely a TDS credit claimed which does not tally with Form 26AS or the AIS, income reflected in the AIS by way of interest, dividend, capital gains or professional receipts which was not offered in the return, a difference in salary as between Form 16, the TDS return of the employer and the return of income, a deduction denied on account of a mismatch with the details in the audit report, a deduction lost on account of the return having been filed late, and a tax challan which has not been matched with the PAN of the assessee. The two columns in the intimation, i.e. "as per return" and "as processed", ought to be compared at the outset, since the difference therein shows exactly what the CPC has changed.
Where the adjustment made by the CPC is correct, the assessee may simply agree and pay the demand through the portal, more so since interest continues to run on the unpaid tax. Where the Section 143(1)(a) notice has been received, the assessee may agree or disagree with the proposed adjustment within 30 days, and in case of disagreement the reasons are to be given alongwith supporting proof, failing which the CPC is free to proceed with the adjustment. After the intimation has been issued, the outstanding demand can be responded to under the pending actions section by choosing to agree, disagree or partly agree, with a reason such as TDS mismatch, tax already paid or demand already adjusted.
In the event the error is apparent from the face of the record, a rectification request under Section 154 is the usual route, more so in cases of TDS credit not given or a challan not matched, and the same can generally be filed within four years from the end of the financial year in which the intimation was issued. Where the mistake was genuinely that of the assessee, a revised return may be filed within the time allowed and the fresh processing thereof checked, whereas in the event the rectification is rejected or the issue involved is one of law, an appeal lies before the CIT(A), which is generally to be filed within 30 days.
Also Read: Section 154 Rectification: How to Fix a Mistake in an Income Tax Order, Filing the First Appeal
As regards the procedure, the intimation ought to be read in full in the first instance and the assessment year, the amount of the demand or refund and the reason for each change noted therefrom, and its genuineness is to be verified on the portal itself rather than on the basis of the e-mail alone. Thereafter Form 26AS and the AIS are required to be downloaded and each entry therein reconciled with the return and the books, and a working is to be prepared item-wise showing the amount as per return, the amount as per Form 26AS or AIS and the reason for the difference, if any, which working alongwith the TDS certificates, bank statements, challans, invoices and, wherever relevant, the audit report forms the basis of the response. Once the appropriate remedy has been decided upon, the response is to be filed with a brief and factual explanation, whereafter the acknowledgement number ought to be preserved and the portal monitored for the order of the CPC and the revised demand or refund, if any.
Read More: How to Check and Authenticate an Income Tax Notice Online
Insofar as the time limits are concerned, the proposed adjustment notice is to be responded to within the time stated therein, which is usually 30 days, and the outstanding demand ought to be responded to promptly inasmuch as interest keeps running thereon. A rectification can generally be sought within four years from the end of the financial year in which the intimation was issued, whereas an appeal before the CIT(A) is generally to be filed within 30 days, there being limited room for condonation of delay.
Read More: 2026 Appeal Deadlines Checklist
The mistake most frequently noticed is that the intimation is ignored on the impression that it is only an intimation, whereas the demand raised therein is real, interest accrues thereon and the amount can be adjusted against the next refund of the assessee. Equally, a demand which is not owed ought not to be paid where the mismatch arises from a processing error and the reconciliation is to be done first, while a mere click on "disagree" without any reason or proof usually results in the demand being confirmed. A rectification is not the same as a response to a demand and a revised return does not cancel the earlier intimation, a response filed by an accountant who has not been added as representative on the portal does not count, and where an AIS entry is incorrect, feedback thereon ought to be given in the AIS module and the same mentioned in the response.
Also Read: What Happens If You Don't Respond to an Income Tax Notice, How to Respond to an Income Tax Notice, Income Tax Notice Reply Format, Stay of Demand Under Section 220(6)
Disclaimer: The contents of this article are for general information only.
The taxpayer can himself log in to the e-filing portal, open the pending action and file the response alongwith the supporting documents, and the services of a professional are not required as such unless the issue involved happens to be a complicated one.
A chartered accountant can respond on behalf of the taxpayer once he has been added as Authorised Representative on the portal and has accepted the same, whereafter he is in a position to file responses and rectification requests from his own login.
In the case of a company the response is to be filed by a director or the authorised signatory of the company, and the same is required to be verified by way of a digital signature certificate or EVC, as the portal may require.
An intimation is the outcome of automated processing of the return whereas a notice under Section 143(2) marks the commencement of a scrutiny assessment, though it may be noted that a mismatch which remains unresolved can make the selection of the case for scrutiny more likely.
The deductor is to be requested to correct its TDS return, and once Form 26AS or the AIS gets updated thereafter, a rectification request may be filed alongwith proof of the said correction so that the credit is duly allowed.
Where the response is not filed within the time allowed, the CPC may proceed to process the return with the proposed adjustment and raise a demand accordingly, though the remedy of rectification, an appeal filed within the period of limitation and an application for stay of demand would still remain available to the assessee.
DSRV & Co. LLP has handled income tax matters since 1987. We're an ICAI-registered, peer-reviewed CA firm in Gurugram. Add us as your Authorised Representative and we'll reconcile the intimation with your 26AS and AIS, pick the right route and file it from our login.
Angel tax is gone for new rounds, but notices for older years are still coming. How startups can defend a Section 56(2)(viib) notice, step by step.
Section 154 rectification explained: what counts as a mistake apparent from the record, the four-year limit, how to file and what to put in the request.
Who can respond to a Section 143(1) intimation mismatch, and how? Taxpayer, signatory or authorised CA, the right portal route, deadlines and mistakes.
