TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 914
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment year 2016-17 declaring total income of Rs. 1,55,73,780/- on 17.10.2016. The casewas selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. The assessee is engaged in the business of builders and developers of various properties. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee received share of profit from partnership firm of Rs. 26,162/- which it claimed exempt from tax. Accordingly, he invoked provisions of section 14A r.w.r. 8D made disallowance of Rs. 6,68,250/- and he alsomade 14A disallowance, the adjustment on the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontentions of the appellant are considered carefully. 4.2 I have gone through the details available on record it is found that the appellant had filed original return of income for AY 2016-17 on 17.10.2016 declaring total income at Rs. 1,55,73,780/-. The said return of income was declared as defective return by the CPC, Bangalore vide its order dated 28.08.2017 wherein the appellant was required to rectify the defects. Accordingly, the said defects were rectified/complied by the appellant on 04.10.2017 and hence, the said return was treated as valid only on 04.10.2017. Since the defects were complied on 04.10.2017. the time limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act is to be considered upto 30.09.2016 as per the provisions of Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that valid income tax return was filed by the assessee only on 4th October 2017 when the defects/deficiency pointed out by the department u/s 139(9) were remedied by the assessee on 4th October, 2017. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not taking into account the fact that the original return filed by the assessee on 17th October 2016 was accepted by the Income Tax Department u/s 143(1) by an order dated 09.11.2017. 4 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Time Securities Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another (Reported in 371 ITR 27 (Bom). 5 Your petitioner submits that original return once remedied in respect of defects pointed out u/s 139(9) should be held valid w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as selected under CASS, it is the duty of the AO to issue the notice before 30.09.2016. 8.1 In this case, the RoIwas filed on 17.10.2016 but itwas found that RoI filed by the assessee is defective after processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act. The assessee was given time to rectify the same but assessee rectified the same only on 04.10.2017. Considering the date of rectification as the date of filing the RoI u/s 139(1) of the Act, the AO issued the notice u/s 143(2) on 10.08.2018 and completed the assessment accordingly u/s 143(3) of the Act. The assessee agitated before CIT(A) by relying on the case Prime Securities Ltd. v. ACIT (2009) 317 ITR 27 (Bom.). The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee's contention and observed that the proviso ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gard to rectification of defect in the RoI filed u/s 139(1) and limitation period to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court held in the case of Kunal Structure (India) Private Limited v. DCIT [2020] 422 ITR 482 (Guj) as below: "A study of the provisions of section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 shows that under sub-section (1) thereof, an assessee is required to file return on or before the due date. If one looks at the language employed in sub-sections (1), (3) and (5) of section 139, a common thread in all the sub-sections is that the assessee is required to file a return of income under those sub-sections. However, from the language employed in sub-section (9) of section 139 of the Act, it does not r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notice under sub-section (9) of section 139 of the Act does not mean that a fresh return of income has been filed under that sub-section. The action of removal of the defects would relate back to the filing of the original return of income and, accordingly, it is the date of filing of the original return which has to be considered for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act and not the date on which the defects actually came to be removed. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 236 (All) relied on. Held accordingly, that the assessee filed its return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 on 10th September, 2016. Since the return was defective, the assessee was cal....