TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 44
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....08.2018 issued under Section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"] [ hereafter referred to as the "second notice"]. 2. The petitioner's/assessee's principal submission, in support of the relief sought in the writ petition, is that the aforementioned impugned notices are barred by limitation. This plea arises in the backdrop of the following facts that are not in dispute. 2.1 The petitioner/assessee had filed its original Return of Income (ROI) on 14.10.2016. In the ROI, the petitioner/assessee declared a loss amounting to Rs. 3,85,73,772/-. On 06.02.2017, the petitioner/assessee was served with a notice under Section 139(9). This notice stated that the ROI filed by the petitioner/assessee was defective and this regard made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2018, which in sum, rejected the petitioner's/assessee's stand that the impugned notices were time-barred. 4. It is this which impelled the petitioner/assessee to approach this court via the instant writ petition. 5. Mr Sumit Lalchandani, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner/assessee, has submitted that the impugned notices are time-barred since they have been issued beyond the time prescribed in the first proviso appended to Section 143(2) of the Act. In the relevant AY i.e., 2016-17, with effect from 01.06.2016, the time limit provided for serving a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was six (6) months from the end of the financial year (FY) in which the return is furnished. 5.1 Mr Lalchandani, thus, submits tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... first notice on 18.02.2017, and for the second notice on 20.07.2017. 9. Significantly, the AO took up the original ROI filed on 14.10.2016 for processing on 22.11.2017, after the defects were removed. Therefore, the AO considered the error-free ROI as the return that was required to be processed. 10. Thus, the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner/assessee, that the return date relates back to the date on which the original ROI was filed seems to have been the yardstick that the AO applied in the instant case. The petitioner's plea, in this behalf, is supported by the decision taken by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Sohan Lal Chhajjan Mal case. The relevant observations made by the court read as follows: "5. A perusa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce-sheet were not enclosed with the return as is the position in the instant case. The assessee in response to the notice had produced and filed its profit and loss account as well as the balance-sheet. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the return was invalid and he set aside the assessment so far as the charging of interest was concerned and directed the Assessing Officer to charge interest on the return from the date of the return till the date of furnishing the profit and loss account and balance-sheet. On further appeal, the Tribunal found that the return filed by the assessee was accepted by the Assessing Officer as a legally valid return and he had acted upon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, as noted above, the SLP filed against the said judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was dismissed, not only on the technicality of limitation but also on merits via order dated 21.07.2008. 12. Therefore, by logical extension, if the date of the ROI originally filed on 14.10.2016 is taken into account, then, the impugned notices served on the petitioner/assessee would be time-barred, as the first proviso appended to Section 143(2) of the Act stipulated, at the relevant point in time, that the notice under the said Section could not have been served on the assessee, in this case, the petitioner, after the expiry of six (6) months from the end of the financial year in which the ROI is filed. For convenience, Section 143(2) and ....