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 notice under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could sustain when it was issued before any notice under section 139(2) had been served, and whether such defect invalidated the best judgment assessment and entitled the assessee to reopening under section 146.
Analysis: A notice under section 142(1) can be issued only to a person who has either made a return or to whom a notice under section 139(2) has been issued. The initial notice under section 142(1) predated the notice under section 139(2) and was therefore invalid from the outset. A later reminder could not cure the foundational defect in the original notice. In the absence of a valid notice under section 142(1), there was no default and the invocation of best judgment assessment under section 144 could not stand. The assessee's application under section 146 was accordingly liable to be accepted.
Conclusion: The assessment was cancelled, the application under section 146 was allowed, and the assessee succeeded on the validity of the notice and consequential assessment.