TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned notices served on the petitioner/assessee would be time-barred, as the first proviso appended to Section 143(2) stipulated, at the relevant point in time, that the notice under the said Section could not have been served on the assessee, in this case, the petitioner, after the expiry of six (6) months from the end of the financial year in which the ROI is filed. The financial year, in the case of the petitioner s/assessee's original return, would have ended on 31.03.2017. Six (6) months, as mandated by the proviso, would have ended on 30.09.2017. Undoubtedly, the notice issued u/s 143(2) is time-barred. Consequently, the notice u/s 142(1) will also collapse. The impugned notices are, accordingly, quashed. - HON' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r/assessee was served with another notice dated 10.07.2017, wherein, it was pointed out that the ROI filed for AY 2016-17 dated 14.10.2016 contained defects. 2.5 The petitioner/assessee, thus once again, removed the defects, albeit, on 20.07.2017. 2.6 Admittedly, the ROI filed on 14.10.2016 was processed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 22.11.2017 after, as indicated above, the defects were removed. An intimation to that effect was served on the petitioner under Section 143(1) of the Act. 2.7 It is only thereafter that the petitioner/assessee was served with the first notice under Section 143(2) on 11.08.2018, and the second notice on 31.08.2018 under Section 142(1) of the Act. 2.8 The petitioner, via response dated 04.09.2018, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2017. Six (6) months after that i.e., 30.09.2017, would be the date on which limitation expires. 5.2 In support of the plea that the date of return would relate back to the date when the original return was filed, reliance was placed on the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Sohan Lal Chhajan Mal (2008) 307 ITR 53 (Punjab Haryana). 5.3 According to Mr Lalchandani, a Special Leave Petition was preferred against the said judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court via order dated 21.07.2008 on grounds of both delay and merit. 6. As against this, Mr Prashant Meharchandani, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the defect to the assessee, afford him an opportunity to rectify the defect within a period of 15 days from the date of such intimation or within such further period which the Assessing Officer may in his discretion allow. If the defect is rectified then the return is to be considered as valid. The Explanation appended to sub-section (9) of section 139 of the Act clarifies that a return of income would be regarded as defective if the annexures, statements and columns in the return concerning computation of income, etc., are not fulfilled or copies of the audited or otherwise profit or loss account have not been attached as required by clauses (e) and (f) of the Explanation. In other words, the statutory provision clearly envisages that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turn has been found to be valid and only a defect within the meaning of section 139(9) of the Act was found then the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified in levying interest. 6. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Bharat Refineries Ltd., [1986] 162 ITR 652; which has been correctly followed and applied by the Tribunal. The finding recorded by the Tribunal in the instant case that the return was defective in contradistinction to be invalid must be regarded as a question of fact. Moreover, the absence of profit and loss account and balance-sheet from the return is itself has been considered by clause (e) of the Explanation appended to sub-s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, the Assessing Officer or the prescribed income-tax authority, as the case may be, if, considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under-paid the tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him, on a date to be specified therein, either to attend the office of the Assessing Officer or to produce, or cause to be produced before the Assessing Officer any evidence on which the assessee may rely in support of the return: Provided that no notice under this sub-section shall be served on the assessee after the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
