Scrutiny notice deadline u/s143(2) when defective return cured u/s139(9), assessment quashed as time-barred.

The dominant issue was whether the limitation for issuing a scrutiny notice under s.143(2) runs from the original return-filing date or from the date a defect was cured under s.139(9). The Tribunal held that s.139(9) permits curing defects up to completion of assessment, and does not bar the AO from proceeding meanwhile; therefore, curing a defect does not shift the statutory limitation start date. Relying on the jurisdictional HC's interpretation that no fresh return is filed on curing defects, the Tribunal held the s.143(2) notice had to be issued within time computed from the original filing date. Since the notice was time-barred, the assessment was without jurisdiction and was quashed; the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance of Employees' contribution to PF and ESIC.
3. Addition on account of difference in receipt between Form 26AS and Profit and Loss account.
4. Disallowance for interest on payment of TDS.
5. Disallowance for penalty expenses.
6. Addition on account of unsecured loan under Section 68.
7. Addition under Section 269SS.
8. Disallowance for employees benefit expenses.
9. Disallowance for Web Design & Development expenses, Data entry operating expenses, and Advertisement and promotion expenses.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Notice Issued under Section 143(2):
The primary issue was whether the jurisdictional notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued within the time limit prescribed. The assessee argued that the notice was issued beyond the time prescribed, as it was issued on 22.09.2019, whereas the original return was filed on 28.10.2017. The Revenue contended that the limitation should be determined from the date when the defect was removed by the assessee, i.e., 19.08.2018. The Tribunal found that as per Section 139(9) of the Act, the removal of defect is no bar to the Assessing Officer from proceeding with assessment and that the limitation for issuing notice under Section 143(2) should run from the year in which the return is filed. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Kunal Structure (India) (P.) Ltd. and concluded that the jurisdictional notice issued beyond the prescribed limit rendered the assessment invalid. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

2. Disallowance of Employees' Contribution to PF and ESIC:
The Tribunal did not adjudicate this issue as the assessment order was quashed due to the invalid jurisdictional notice.

3. Addition on Account of Difference in Receipt:
Similarly, this issue was not addressed due to the quashing of the assessment order.

4. Disallowance for Interest on Payment of TDS:
This issue was also rendered academic and was not adjudicated by the Tribunal.

5. Disallowance for Penalty Expenses:
The Tribunal did not address this issue as well.

6. Addition on Account of Unsecured Loan under Section 68:
This issue was not adjudicated due to the quashing of the assessment order.

7. Addition under Section 269SS:
The Tribunal did not address this issue.

8. Disallowance for Employees Benefit Expenses:
This issue was also rendered academic and was not adjudicated.

9. Disallowance for Web Design & Development Expenses, Data Entry Operating Expenses, and Advertisement and Promotion Expenses:
The Tribunal did not address this issue due to the quashing of the assessment order.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the assessment order on the grounds that the jurisdictional notice under Section 143(2) was issued beyond the prescribed time limit. Consequently, other grounds raised on the merits of the case were rendered academic and were not adjudicated.

---