TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 937X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of assessment u/s 143(1) is to be treated as non est, is unacceptable. Revised return of income was filed within the time prescribed u/s 139(5) of the Act, in our view, it is a valid return. Proviso to section 143(2) makes it clear that no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act shall be served on the assessee after expiry of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished. To my understanding, section 139 used in section 143(2) of the Act is wide enough to include a revised return filed u/s139(5) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has time to issue notice before expiry of six months from the end of the financial year wherein the revised return of income was filed. Admittedly, the revised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 declaring income of Rs.5,52,660. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 10.11.2014 declaring income of Rs.5,52,660. Assessee s case was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act on 20.08.2015. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 18.03.2016 adding an amount of Rs.35,12,500 under Section 68 of the Act. Against the assessment order so passed, assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals), inter alia, on the ground that the assessment order is invalid due to non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act within the period of limitation. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted, since, the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was issued on 23.01.2014, the revised return of income is non est. Thus, the date of filing of revised return, cannot be reckoned for the purpose of limitation in issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions: i) Vipin Khanna vs. CIT 255 ITR 220 ( P H); ii) Mohammed Farooque Sarang-vs-DCIT 164 ITD 573 (Mum); iii) Hari Mohan Das Tandon (HUF)-vs-PCIT 169 ITD 639 All); iv) Budhewal Co-Operative Sugar Mills-v-JCIT 101 TTJ Chd.). 6. Learned Departmental Representative submitted, the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act cannot be treated as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n assessment order. There are plethora of judicial precedents propounding the aforesaid legal position. Therefore, I do not want to discuss in detail all these decisions. Suffice to say, in case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broker (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the aforesaid ratio. Thus, the contention of learned Authorized Representative, that the revised return of income filed after completion of assessment under Section 143(1) is to be treated as non est, is unacceptable. 10. Considering the fact that the revised return of income was filed within the time prescribed under Section 139(5) of the Act, in my view, it is a valid return. 11. Having held so, it is necessary now to examine the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
