Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.1 On examination of the assessment records, it was found by the learned GIT that more than one processing order under Section 143(1) of the IT Act have been passed by the AO for the impugned asst. yr. 2002-03. Therefore, a notice under Section 263 dt. 18th Feb., 2005 was issued to the assessee to show cause as to why the second processing order under Section 143(1), dt. 30th June, 2004 be not treated as ab initio illegal and void.

2.2 In reply, it was submitted by the assessee that:

Even after issuance of intimation under Section 143(1), revised return can be validly filed and intimation under Section 143(1) can again be issued of processing of revised return even after the omission of Sub-section (1B) of Section 143 w.e.f. 1st June, 1999 as there is no change in Section 139(5) of the IT Act which provides for filing of the revised return before expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. It was further submitted by the assessee that processing of the return under Section 143(1) 'cannot be equated to the assessment and for this proposition, the reliance was placed on the following decisions :

3. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT, the assessee is in appeal before us.

4. The grounds taken by the assessee are as under :

1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT erred in passing order under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961, cancelling intimation under Section 143(1)(a) dt. 30th June, 2004.

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT failed to appreciate that second revised return was validly filed and so second intimation under Section 143(1) processing the second revised return, being one of the prescribed courses for dealing with IT returns, was validly issued which cannot be subjected to cancellation by GIT in absence of any erroneous elements therein.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order under Section 263 passed by GIT is bad in law and without jurisdiction as view taken by learned AO in processing valid second revised return under Section 143(1) was one of the prescribed courses open to him, there being no statutory or other requirement to process same under Section 143(3) only and so intimation revised by GIT could not be termed erroneous in view of ITO adopting one of the possible views.

4. The order under Section 263 appealed against was passed by learned CIT without considering our written arguments supporting, Inter alia, validity of second revised return filed, after issue of intimation under Section 143(1) and order of learned AO being not erroneous and thus suffers from non-application of mind and arbitrariness on the part of learned CIT.

15. In Kalyanpur Cement Ltd. v. Jt. CIT it has been held at p. 54 as under:

Whether second revised return is valid :

Section 139(5) permits furnishing of revised return within the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment whichever is earlier provided he has furnished a return either under Section 139(1) or in pursuance of the notice issued under Section 142(1). In the present case, the assessee had filed the return under Section 139(1). Therefore, he is eligible to file a revised return under Sub-section (5) within or before the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier.