TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 2027
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....790 declared in the return of income filed on 29 December 2017. 02. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO, both the officers have erred in not appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the appellant and has further erred in passing order which is bad in law and on facts. 2. That the impugned assessment order dated 12 December 2019 is void ab initio because the underlying notice issued against the return filed vide Acknowledgement No. 226290071290917 dated 29th September 2017 for the assessment u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 22nd September 2019 was barred by limitation. Hence the impugned assessment order dated 12th December 2019 is non-est in the eyes of law and the same may kindly be QUASHED. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO both the officers have erred in not providing proper opportunity of being heard. Hence the impugned assessment order dated 12th December 2019 needs to be ANNULLED. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO, both the officers have erred in making/confirming addition of Rs 6,39,51,505/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of receipt of share premium without appreciatin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ued, but no response was filed. The learned Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had debited expenses of Rs.21,400,625 in its books and, for want of supporting details, disallowed 30% of those expenses, amounting to Rs.6,420,188. The Assessing Officer also observed that Rs.63,951,505 was shown as securities premium reserve in the balance sheet. In the absence of supporting details, the amount was added under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, and the assessment order was passed under section 144 on 12 December 2019. 04. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A), along with written submissions and supporting documents. On disallowance of expenditure, the assessee submitted that it had amalgamated with another company, Around the Glass Being Private Limited, pursuant to the order of the National Company Law Tribunal dated 7 July 2023. As a result, it was in the process of compiling the relevant financial records, including expense vouchers and bank statements. The assessee also furnished details of various expenses. The learned CIT(A), however, held that the Assessing Officer had given sufficient opportunities to submit the detai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was beyond limitation. In support, the authorized representative relied on several judicial precedents, including Octal Projects India Private Limited v. Union of India (2020) 422 ITR 478, Prime Securities Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (2009) 317 ITR 27, and Anand Structure India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (2020) 422 ITR 482. He also produced screenshots from the income-tax portal showing the date of filing of the return and the subsequent removal of defects. On this basis, it was submitted that the notice under section 143(2) was time-barred and the assessment order passed pursuant to it deserves to be quashed. 08. Thus, where an original return is treated as defective under section 139(9) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the assessee rectifies the defect within the permitted time, the better legal view is that the return retains its original filing date. The correction merely cures the defect in the original return and does not amount to filing a fresh return. A return is treated as invalid only when the defect is not removed within the prescribed or extended time, in which case the Act applies as if no return had been furnished. Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he distinction between rectification of a defective return under section 139(9) and filing a revised return under section 139(5) is crucial. It is true that section 139(9) does not contemplate the filing of an altogether fresh return. It permits the assessee to rectify the defect in the return already filed. Thus, where the defect is cured within the permissible period, the corrected return relates back to the original return. Therefore, Original return is filed which is found to be defective and notices are given for removal of such defects u/s 139(9), consequently assessee cured defect within permitted time, then original return becomes valid and all limitation date relates back to original filing date. 12. The situation may change where finding defect notice the assessee filed its a fresh return of income whether under section 139 (4) or any other provisions then in that case Original defective return is obliterated and a fresh return filed on defect-removal date, is a fresh return and all limitation starts afresh. 13. Thus we understand from the above analysis is that where a return of income furnished under section 139(1) is treated as defective under section 139(9), and....