TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19(2)(b) - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that this course of action does not align with the provisions of the Act. The fact that there has been a change in the name of the petitioner is not in dispute; in fact, on the date when the return was filed, i.e., 15.10.2018, the petitioner was described as RWML. Accordingly, the impugned order and communications are set aside. The respondents/revenue are directed to process the return filed on 15.10.2018 concerning the aforementioned AY, and pass necessary consequential orders. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA For the Petitioner Through: Mr Rohit Jain, Adv. For the Respondents Through: Mr Aseem Chawla, Sr Standing Counsel wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the petitioner on 15.10.2018 has been treated as an invalid return. 9. Mr Rohit Jain, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that when the return for AY 2018-19 was filed on 15.10.2018, the petitioner was described as Religare Wealth Management Ltd. [in short, RWML ]. 9.1 It is pointed out that the petitioner had applied for change of name, which was approved by the Registrar of Companies [in short, ROC ] on 20.12.2018. 10. According to Mr Jain, thereafter, the petitioner was described as Religare Advisors Ltd. [in short, RAL ]. 10.1 Mr Jain also draws our attention to the fact that, an application was preferred with the concerned authority for the change of Permanent Account Number (PAN). 10.2 Mr Jain says that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... new name, i.e., RAL. 15. In brief, Mr Jain submits that Section 139(9) of the Act empowers the AO to intimate to the assessee any defect in the return filed by the assessee and grant an opportunity to cure the defect. 16. Insofar as what is to be construed as the proper return , it is provided in Explanation appended to sub-section (9) of Section 139 of the Act. 16.1 In other words, the return which does not have the attributes provided in the Explanation, is considered a defective return. 17. Thus, in sum, Mr Jain says that since the return filed by the petitioner on 15.10.2018 concerning AY 2018-19 was a proper return, it could not have been categorized as defective. 18. Mr Jain says that, therefore, the respondents/reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
