B. N. Kirpal, J. ( 1 ) THE challenge in this W. P. is to an order passed u/s. 143 (1) of the Income-tax Act whereby certain adjustments have been carried out by the Income Tax Officer. which have resulted in taxable-income being computed. ( 2 ) THE petitioner filed a return for the assessment year 1989-90 and disclosed a loss of Rs. 53,850. 00. The Income Tax Officer. then issued an intimation dated 29. 10. 90 u/s. 143 (l) (a) alongwith explanation slip whereby petitioner was informed that certain additions were made as a result of which the total income computed came to Rs. 2,81,500. 00. The additions made were of five items. They were Corpus Donation of Rs. 1,62,500. 00; Retainership fee ofrs. 76,950. 00; Medicine expenses of Rs. 23,500. 00; Rent of Rs. 9,600. 00 and Maintenance expenses of Rs. 8,910. 00. The sum of Rs. 1,62,500. 00 was regarded by the petitioner as not taxable because it was a receipt towards Corpus of the Charitable Trust. The other four items were claimed as expenses and it is in this manner that the petitioner had declared a loss of Rs. 53,850. 00. The additions were made by the I. T. O. only for one reason viz. , that no proof in respect of the claim of the petitioner had been filed with the Income Tax Officer. ( 3 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on a correct interpretation of Sec. 143 (1) no such additions for the reasons stated by the Income Tax Officer. could have been made. We shall revert to that presently. Mr. Gupta has vehemently contended that after the aforesaid intimation had been sent an order u/s. 154 has been passed by the Income Tax Officer. on 12. 8. 91 whereby the adjustments which have been conveyed u/s. 143 (1) (a) have been rectified and the income was put at a figure of nil and the W. P. has become infructuous. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the grievance still subsists. As far as the petitioner was concerned it had disclosed a return of loss of Rs. 53,840. 00 but as a result of an order u/s. 154 the loss now stands converted to a figure of nil . In other words there is no taxable income nor is there any loss. As far as the petitioner was concerned it had disclosed a return of loss of Rs. 53,840. 00 but as a result of an order u/s. 154 the loss now stands converted to a figure of nil . In other words there is no taxable income nor is there any loss. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that no reason has been given by the Income Tax Officer. while passing an order u/s. 154 as to why the said order has been passed. The order u/s. 154 merely states that "after considering the facts the income is rectified to nil income . " The learned counsel submits that in future also there is no guarantee that on account of lack of proof, the Income Tax Officer. may make disallowance u/s. 143 (1) and, therefore, a judicial pronouncement on a correct interpretation of the said provision is called for. ( 4 ) IN our opinion the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is right. There is no reason given in the impugned order dated 29. 10. 90 as to why the additions are being made. The order passed u/s. 154 contains no reason. The reason for making the additions, in the first instance was that no proof, had been furnished alongwith the filing of return. The question which arises for our consideration is whether an adjustment can be made in the event of non-filing of proof in claim of deduction or in claim of a receipt being non-taxable. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is necessary to refer to S. 143 (1) and the first proviso thereto. The said proviso is as under : "143 (L) (A ). In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is necessary to refer to S. 143 (1) and the first proviso thereto. The said proviso is as under : "143 (L) (A ). Where a return has been made u/s. 139, or in response to a notice under subsection (1) of S. 142,- (i) if any tax or interest is found due on the basis of such return, after adjustment of any tax deducted at source, any advance tax paid and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest, then without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2), an intimation shall be sent to the assessee specifying the sum so payable, and such intimation shall be deemed to be a notice of demand issued u/s. 156 and all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly; and (ii) if any refund is due on the basis of such return, it shall be granted to the assessee : Provided that in computing the tax or interest payable by, or refundable to, the assessee, the following adjustments shall be made in the income or loss declared in the return, namely :- (i ). . . (ii ). . . (iii) 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, shall be disallowed. " ( 5 ) IN the instant case it is clause (iii) of, the proviso which was sought to be applied by the Income Tax Officer. The said clause clearly provides that the Income Tax Officer. can make an adjustment to the income or loss declared in the return if on the basis of the information available in such return, accounts or documents, the deduction allowance or relief claimed is prima facie inadmissible. The conclusion that the claim of the assessee is inadmissible, must, in other words, flow from the return as filed. No power is given to the I. T. O. to disallow a claim for the reason that there is no proof in support of the claim mad. ; by the assessee. In a way the said clause (iii) of the proviso is analogous to S. 154 of the Act. No power is given to the I. T. O. to disallow a claim for the reason that there is no proof in support of the claim mad. ; by the assessee. In a way the said clause (iii) of the proviso is analogous to S. 154 of the Act. Where it is evident from the return as filed, alongwith the documents in support thereof, that a claim of the assessee is inadmissible only then an adjustmsnt under the said proviso can be made. If proof in support of the claim is not furnished by an assessee then for the lack of the proof no disallowance or an adjustment can be made. The only option which is open to the I. T. O. , in such a case is that he can require the assessee to furnish proof in which case he will presumably have to issue notice u/s. 143 (2 ). This is also evident from the fact that except for the documents specified the assessee is not required to file the entire books of account or other documents alongwith the return. The proof in support of the claim may be evidenced from correspondence, from the books of account or other documents and it is not the law, as we understand, that in support of a claim made in the return for deduction or non- taxability of a receipt, all the proofs available and original documents must be filed alongwith the return. It is apparent on the reading of the said provision that adjustment can be made only if there is information available in such return that prima facie a claim or allowance is inadmissible. For the aforesaid view which we are taking support is available from the understanding of the said provision by the Department itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a circular No. 549 reported at 182 ITR (ST)1 at page 21 issued by the CBDT wherein examples have been given of adjustments which can be carried out. The relevant part of the said circular is : "the prima facie adjustments at (ii) above can be made only on the basis of information available in the return or the accompanying accounts or documents and not on the basis of the past records of the assessee. The relevant part of the said circular is : "the prima facie adjustments at (ii) above can be made only on the basis of information available in the return or the accompanying accounts or documents and not on the basis of the past records of the assessee. Some examples of such prima facie admissibles or inadmissibles in respect of which adjustments can be made to the returned income or loss are : (i) while computing income under the Head Salaries, standard deduction under section 16 (1) is not claimed, at a figure which is less than or excess of the permissible limit; (ii) while computing income under the head income from house property, deduction for l/6th for repairs or for a new unit under the proviso to S. 23 (1) is not claimed, or claimed at a figure which is less than or is in excess of the permissible amount; (iii) while computing income under the head profits and gains of business or professions, depreciation claimed at rates lower or higher than those provided for in the Income Tax Rules; (iv) while computing capital gains, deduction of Rs. 10,000. 10,000. 00 u/s. 48 (2) is not claimed or claimed less or in excess of this amount; (v) Carried forward speculation loss set off against income from business or profession or against income under any other head; (vi) Loss under any head, other than under the head "profits and gains of business or profession", carried forward and set off against the current income; (vii) Carried forward loss of business set off against income of the current year under other heads; (viii) Old loss of more than eight assessment years set off against the current business income, if the information is available in the return or the accompanying documents; (ix) Deduction u/s. 80-C in respect of provident fund contributions of life insurance premia or N. S. C. VI or VII issue not claimed, though the information is available in the documents accompanying the return, or claimed at a figure which is less than or is in excess of the permissible amount; (x) Deduction u/s. 80-L not claimed or claimed at a figure which is less than or is in excess of the permissible amount; (xi) Deduction u/s. 80-G not claimed, although allowable on the basis of the information available in the return or the accompanying documents or claimed at a figure which is less than or is in excess of the permissible limit; (xii) Deduction u/s. 80-M claimed at sixty per cent of gross dividend income instead of on net dividend income in violation of the provisions of S. 80-AA. It may be mentioned that the above is not an exhaustive, but only an illustrative, list of prima facie admissibles or inadmissibles for which adjustments can be made to the returned income or loss". ( 6 ) THE aforesaid examples contained in the circular clearly show that for want of proof no disallowance is or adjustment can be made. It is only when a disallowance is evident from the facts on record that an adjustment can be made. ( 7 ) AS already noted, in the present case, the adjustments were made for the reason that in support of the claim the petitioner had not furnished the proof. The stage of furnishing of the proof is reached as and when proof is demanded by the Income Tax Officer. on a notice u/s. 143 (2) being issued. ( 7 ) AS already noted, in the present case, the adjustments were made for the reason that in support of the claim the petitioner had not furnished the proof. The stage of furnishing of the proof is reached as and when proof is demanded by the Income Tax Officer. on a notice u/s. 143 (2) being issued. If no proof in support of the claim was available with the I. T. O. he could have issued a notice u/s. 143 (2) but he could not have unilaterally held that this disallowance by seeking to invoke the provisions of first proviso to S. 143 (1) because the said provisions were not applicable in the present case.