TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 1176
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....018 Defect Removed 31.08.2018 Return of Income processed u/ s. 143 (1) 17.09.2018 Due date of issuing sec. 143 (2) [Original ROI] 30.09.2018 Date of issuing sec. 143 (2) notice 22.09.2019 Held notice u/ s. 143 (2) dated 11.08.2018 To be held as time barred 3. On this issue we are guided by the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of SMC Comtrade Ltd. vs ACIT Circle 24(1), 156 taxmann.com 202, WP(C )No. 11875 of 2018 dated 9t h October 2023. For the sake of ready reference the said order of the Hon'ble High Court is also reproduced below:- This writ petition concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. Via this, writ action the petitioner/assessee seeks to assail notice dated 11-8-201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved. An intimation to that effect was served on the petitioner under section 143(1) of the Act. 2.7 It is only thereafter that the petitioner/assessee was served with the first notice under section 143(2) on 11-8-2018, and the second notice on 31-8-2018 under section 142(1) of the Act. 2.8 The petitioner, via response dated 4-9-2018, took the stand that there was no revision of the original return filed on 14-10-2016, that the notice under section 139(5) and compliance thereto cannot be treated on par with the provisions of Section 139(9); that the return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act; and that the notices are invalid and illegal as they were barred by limitation. The point concerning the expiration of limi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R 53 (Punjab & Haryana). 5.3 According to Mr Lalchandani, a Special Leave Petition was preferred against the said judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court via order dated 21-7-2008 on grounds of both delay and merit. 6. As against this, Mr Prashant Mehar chandani, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent/revenue, submits that a notice under section 143 could only have been issued after the defect was removed, and therefore, the impugned notices were within the time prescribed by the statute. 7. We have heard counsel for the parties. 8. The dates and events adverted to hereinabove are not in dispute. As noted above, the origi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction (9) of section 139 of the Act clarifies that a return of income would be regarded as defective if the annexures, statements and columns in the return concerning computation of income, etc., are not fulfilled or copies of the audited or otherwise profit or loss account have not been attached as required by clauses (e) and (f) of the Explanation. In other words, the statutory provision clearly envisages that in cases where profit and loss account and balance-sheet are not accompanying the return of income, it would be regarded as defective in contradistinction to invalid return. A defective return, therefore, cannot be regarded as invalid return ipso facto. It may assume the character of invalid return if the defect after due notice has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Ltd., [1986] 162 ITR 652; which has been correctly followed and applied by the Tribunal. The finding recorded by the Tribunal in the instant case that the return was defective in contradistinction to be invalid must be regarded as a question of fact. Moreover, the absence of profit and loss account and balance-sheet from the return is itself has been considered by clause (e) of the Explanation appended to sub-section (9) of section 139 of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the return, in fact, was filed on the day when the defect was removed, i.e., on January 3, 1992. The date of filing the return would not change a fortiori. It follows that the period of limitation for issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act could....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcessive loss or has not under-paid the tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him, on a date to be specified therein, either to attend the office of the Assessing Officer or to produce, or cause to be produced before the Assessing Officer any evidence on which the assessee may rely in support of the return: Provided that no notice under this sub-section shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished.]" [Emphasis is ours] 12.1 The financial year, in the case of the petitioner's/assessee's original return, would have ended on 31-3-2017. Six (6) months, as mandated by the proviso, would have ended on 30-9-20....