2026 (2) TMI 374

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se of the Petitioner, and declaring the Return of the Petitioner as invalid under Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "IT Act"). Additionally, the order dated 28th March 2025 passed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 264 is also assailed in this Petition. 3. The facts of the present case are in a very narrow compass. The Petitioner filed its Return of Income for A.Y. 2022-2023 on 2nd November 2022, declaring a total loss of Rs. 45.47 Crores. After the Return of Income was filed, the Petitioner was served with the notice dated 14th December 2022 issued under Section 139(9) of the IT Act. This notice was issued by Respondent No.2 stating that the Return filed by the Petitioner for the said Assessment Year was defective as ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1st Respondent went on to hold that the so-called communication addressed by the CPC to the Petitioner was not an order as contemplated under Section 264. We are clearly of the view that a declaration given under Section 139(9) of the IT Act is clearly an order which is revisable under Section 264. It is certainly a mandate, or at the very least, an authoritative direction. 6. What is interesting to note is that in the case of TPL-HGIEPL Joint Venture Vs. Union of India [(2025) 173 taxmann.com 540 (Bombay)], it was the case of the Revenue itself that any declaration given under Section 139(9) of the IT Act was certainly revisable under Section 264. In fact, this submission of the Revenue was accepted by this Court and the Writ Petition ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nected matters decided on 11-11-2024/[2024] 169 taxmann.com 413/[2025] 95 GSTL 101 (Bombay), we considered several precedents on the exhaustion of alternate remedies. By following the reasoning in the said decision, we do not think that this is a matter which falls within the exceptions or that this is an exceptional case where the rule of exhaustion of alternate remedies must be bypassed. 34. For the reasons indicated above, the Petitioner is best placed to avail of the alternate remedy under Section 264 of the IT Act. At the same time, we believe that the Respondents must create a system in which their CPC or portal demonstrates thoughtful consideration, and the essence of the orders is not like the "inscrutable face of a sphinx.....