The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 1018 (Guj-HC) : (2020) 422 ITR 0482 : (2020) 269 TAXMAN 0440

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 143(2)

Where there was defect in return of income and that defect was removed by assessee on 7-7-2017, i.e., within time allowed by AO, i.e., up to 20-7-2017, then on such defects being removed, return would relate back to date of filing original return, that is, 10-9-2016 and consequently, limitation for issuance of notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 would be 30-9-2017, viz. six months from the end of financial year in which return under sub-section (1) of section 139 came to be filed. It is an admitted position that impugned notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 had been issued on 9-8-2018, which was much beyond the period of limitation for issuance of such notice as envisaged under that sub-section, therefore, impugned notice was clearly barred by limitation and could not be sustained.

Assessment - Notice under section 143(2) - Notice issued beyond time-limit - Defective return

Assessee filed return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 on 10-9-2016. Since the return was defective, assessee was called upon to remove such defects, which came to be removed on 7-7-2017. AO thereafter issued notice under section 143(2) on 9-8-2018. Assessee challenged the notice as barred by limitation.Held: As defect was removed by assessee on 7-7-2017, i.e., within time allowed by AO, i.e., upto 20-7-2017, on such defects being removed, return would relate back to date of filing original return, that is, 10-9-2016 and consequently, limitation for issuance of notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 would be 30-9-2017, viz. six months from the end of financial year in which return under sub-section (1) of section 139 came to be filed. It is an admitted position that impugned notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 had been issued on 9-8-2018, which is much beyond the period of limitation for issuance of such notice as envisaged under that sub-section, therefore, impugned notice, was clearly barred by limitation and could not be sustained.

REFERRED : Dhampur Sugar Mills v. CIT (1973) 90 ITR 236 (All.) : 1973 TaxPub(DT) 200 (All-HC) and Pr. CIT v. Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel (2017) 249 Taxman 470 (Guj) : (2017) 84 taxmann.com 32 (Guj.) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 2126 (Guj-HC).

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. : 2016-17



IN THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT