Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a return filed under section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be revised under section 139(5), and whether a notice issued under the proviso to section 143(2) on the basis of such subsequent return is valid.
Analysis: The assessee filed the original return belatedly under section 139(4). A subsequent return was filed and treated as a revised return. The controlling principle applied was that section 139(5) permits revision only of a return furnished under section 139(1) or in response to a notice under section 142(1), and not of a return filed under section 139(4). The later return was therefore not a valid revised return and could not shift the point of limitation for issuing notice under the proviso to section 143(2). Since the notice was issued beyond the permissible period reckoned from the valid return, the assessment based on that notice could not stand.
Conclusion: The second return was not valid as a revised return, the notice under section 143(2) was time-barred, and the assessment was invalid.
Final Conclusion: The assessment and the appellate order were quashed, and the assessee succeeded on the legal challenge to the validity of the assessment proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: A return furnished under section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot be revised under section 139(5), and a notice under the proviso to section 143(2) must be tested against the valid return alone for limitation purposes.