Limitation for notice under section 143(2): a revised return relates back, time-barred notice and invalid service render assessment void.

Delay in filing an appeal of 127 days was condoned on the factual basis of non-receipt of the appellate order and prompt filing upon discovery; appeal admitted. A revised/rectified return filed to cure defects was held to relate back to the original return date for computing the limitation for issuing a notice under section 143(2), so the impugned notice issued beyond that period was time barred and the resulting assessment invalid. Separately, absence of valid service of the section 143(2) notice rendered the assessment void ab initio; assessment framed under section 144 was quashed accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 127 days in filing the appeal should be condoned and the appeal admitted; (ii) Whether the notice for assessment under section 143(2) was time barred and the consequent assessment void; (iii) Whether non-receipt/non-service of notice rendered the assessment void ab initio.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeal of 127 days is liable to be condoned.

Analysis: The assessee explained non-receipt of the appellate order and filed a condonation petition supported by facts showing discovery of the order during routine portal inspection and prompt filing thereafter. The respondent did not controvert these factual contentions. The Tribunal examined the explanation for delay and found it reasonable in the circumstances.

Conclusion: Delay condoned and the appeal admitted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the notice under section 143(2) was time barred because the revised/rectified return filed at the instance of CPC cannot extend the period for issuance of the notice.

Analysis: The Tribunal treated the rectified/revised return as having relation back to the date of the original return filed within the due date. Relying on the legal principle that a revised or rectified return filed to cure defects steps into the shoes of the original return, the period for issuing a notice under 143(2) runs from the end of the financial year in which the original return was furnished. The notice in question was issued beyond that limitation period.

Conclusion: The notice was time barred and therefore invalid; the assessment based on that notice is void in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether absence of service/non-receipt of the notice under section 143(2) independently renders the assessment void ab initio.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the settled requirement that a notice under section 143(2) must be served before making an assessment. The record showed no valid service of the impugned notice within the limitation period and factual reasons were found for non-receipt due to change of registered office and name/email details. The Tribunal referred to controlling precedent that assessment without valid service of the notice is liable to be quashed.

Conclusion: The assessment is invalid for want of valid service of the notice and is void ab initio in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed; the assessment framed under section 144 is quashed on grounds of time-bar and invalid service of the notice and the matter stands decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A revised or rectified return filed to cure defects relates back to the date of the original return for the purpose of computing the limitation for issuance of a notice under section 143(2), and an assessment framed without serving a valid notice under section 143(2) is void ab initio.

---