TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal affirms CIT(A)'s decision on return validity and assessment legality under tax law</h1> The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the appeal regarding the validity of the initial return and subsequent revision. The assessment made ... - Issues:1. Barred by limitation - Assessment under s. 143(3) r/w s. 144B2. Validity of the return filed by the assessee on 7th Feb, 19783. Interpretation of s. 139(5) regarding revised return4. Extension of limitation period under s. 153(1) (c) r/w Explanation 1(iv) to s. 153 (3)5. Applicability of s. 271(1) (c) and its impact on the assessment timelineAnalysis:1. The appeal was filed against an assessment made by the ITO under s. 143(3) r/w s. 144B, contending it was barred by limitation. The timeline of events leading to the assessment was detailed, including the filing of returns and notices served on the assessee.2. The main contention was whether the return filed on 7th Feb, 1978, was valid under s. 139(1) or s. 139(2). The CIT(A) held it was a return under s. 139(4), providing an opportunity to file a return before assessment. The validity of this initial return was crucial in determining the subsequent assessment's legality.3. The interpretation of s. 139(5) was pivotal in deciding if the return filed on 7th Sep, 1978, was a revised return. The assessee argued that since the first return was not under s. 139(1) or s. 139(2), the subsequent return could not be revised under s. 139(5). The CIT(A) disagreed, stating the initial return was under s. 139(4), making the subsequent return eligible for revision.4. The extension of the limitation period under s. 153(1) (c) r/w Explanation 1(iv) to s. 153 (3) was crucial in justifying the assessment made on 14th Jan, 1980. The ITO's calculation of the limitation period and the subsequent actions taken within that period were examined to determine the assessment's validity.5. The applicability of s. 271(1) (c) and its impact on the assessment timeline was also discussed. The department argued that the time-limit was extended due to penalty provisions, supporting the assessment's validity. The assessee contested this, emphasizing the necessity of the ITO recording the application of s. 271(1) (c) within the limitation period.6. The Tribunal analyzed various legal precedents and decisions to support its conclusion that the initial return filed on 7th Feb, 1978, was valid under s. 139(1) or s. 139(2) r/w s. 139(4). This determination influenced the assessment's legality and the subsequent revision under s. 139(5).7. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the appeal based on the validity of the initial return and the subsequent revision under s. 139(5). The assessment made on 14th Jan, 1980, was deemed valid within the extended limitation period, resolving the issue of limitation and assessment legality.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
