Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP and the Hon'ble Court was pleased to dismiss the same in its corn!)in2c1 order in the lead case in Mahendra Mills in (2000) 109 taxmann.com 225 (SC).

(2) M/s Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., (1991) 191 ITR 156 (Kar) -- The Hon'ble High Court held that once a valid revised return is filed by the assessee, it completely effaces and obliterates the original return and therefore, it is only the revised return that has to be taken into account for purpose of making assessment.

9.2 It is further submitted by the learned AR that there is no dispute that a valid revised return of income was filed on M/s.Opto Circuits (India) Limited.

17.03.2014 as could be seen from the impugned assessment order itself. It is also not in dispute that there is no Notice issued u/s 143(2) on or after 17-03-2014 after the filing of the revised return. It is also not considered out of context to submit that the assessment order is completed only on 30-03-2015, after one year from the date of filing the revised return and it was the duty of the assessing officer to issue the Notice u/s 143(2) before completing the assessment. It is further submitted that the provision of section 292BB incorporating the Rule of Evidence only applies to a case where the Notice u/s 143(2) is 'ISSUED', but not to a case where the Notice itself is not issued. In view of the above, the learned AR pleaded that the impugned assessment order completed u/s 143(3) without the issue/service of the mandatory Notice u/s 143(2) is void and is liable to be vacated.