TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s after the petitioner removed the defects on 12th September, 2017. The issue arising in the present petition is no longer resintegra. A division bench of this Court in case of Prime Securities Limited Vs. Varinder Mehta, Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax [2009 (4) TMI 108 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] had held that once the defects are removed within the time permitted by the department, the same would relate back to the original date of filing of the return. In the result, impugned notice is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Writ Petition No. 3501 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 24-1-2019 - AKIL KURESHI AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. Mr. Naresh Jain with Ms. Neha Anchliya i/by M/s Agrud Partners for the Petitioner. Mr. N.C. Mohanty f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the department that there was no defect in such return. 4. There was no response from the respondents to this communication of the petitioner, nevertheless it appears that the department proceeds on the basis that such representation was proper and that there was no further need to remove any defects as communicated under letter dated 19th September, 2017. On 10th February, 2018, the Assessing Officer processed the petitioner's return under Section 143(1) of the Act, which was duly communicated to the petitioner. 5. On 10th August, 2018, the Assessing Officer issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 143(2) of the Act, conveying to the petitioner that the return in question is taken in scrutiny. The petitioner has chal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the return of income on 16th October, 2016. This return was found to be defective. Department called upon petitioner to remove such defects which was done on 12th September, 2017. Though at one stage the department had some doubt about the curing of defects, on a representation of the petitioner it did not raise this issue further and thus impliedly accepted the petitioner's representation that there were no further defects after the petitioner removed the defects on 12th September, 2017. 7. The issue arising in the present petition is no longer resintegra. A division bench of this Court in case of Prime Securities Limited Vs. Varinder Mehta, Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (2009) 317 ITR 27 (Bom) had held that once the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition will have to be allowed. 8. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the revenue, the case before the Bombay High Court in case of Prime Securities Limited (supra) arose in somewhat different background namely in the context of the assessee claiming a benefit under Section 47(5) of the Act. Nevertheless, the observations of the Court noted above and which can be seen as the ratio of the decision, would be applicable in the present case on all fours. In the said case, the Court held that in case of filing of a defective return by the assessee (which may not be confused with filing of the invalid return) upon such defects being removed within the time permitted, such action of removal of defect would relate back to the filing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
