TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was time-barred and, consequently, whether the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) could stand where the return was filed electronically without digital signature but the ITR-V verification was furnished within the extended time allowed by CBDT circulars.
Analysis: The electronic return was filed under Rule 12(3) of the Income Tax Rules in a manner permitted by the then prevailing scheme. The CBDT circular of 2009 required filing of ITR-V within 30 days, and the circular dated 01.09.2010 extended that period up to 31.12.2010 or 120 days from uploading, whichever was later. The Court treated these circulars as addressing the practical gap and conflict created by the statutory and rule-based scheme, under which electronic filing without digital signature required later verification by ITR-V. On the facts, furnishing of ITR-V within the extended period validated the original return and related back to the date of electronic filing. The notice under section 143(2), issued beyond the permissible period counted from that filing date, was therefore beyond time.
Conclusion: The question of law was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The notice under section 143(2) was barred by limitation, and the assessment under section 143(3) could not be sustained.
TaxTMI 
