Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: revised return when valid in Dcit, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata , Kolkata vs M/S. Merino Industries Limited , ... on 6 February, 2025Matching Fragments
4. In reply, Ld. DR submitted that the assessee had objected to the non-issuance of notice u/s.143(2) only on 27.03.2015 which is also extracted by the AO in Page No.27 of this order. It was a further submission that the assessee having been granted substantial opportunities as has been extracted by the AO in Page No.6 of this Order, it was a submission that the assessment was liable to be upheld.
5. We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, the last revised return filed by the assessee on 26.02.2014. This was admittedly a valid revised return. The AO has also not rejected the revised return. The assessee has also given his Explanation for filing the said revised return. In fact, after the said revised return was filed, notice u/s.142(1) has been issued on 10.12.2014 and show cause notice have been issued on 23.12.2014 and on 12.03.2015. In response to the show cause notice issued by the AO on 23.03.2015, intimating the assessee to provide his response by 27.03.2015, the assessee has intimated that the notice u/s.143(2) has not been issued on the assessee within the prescribed time. In fact, before the show cause notice being issued by the AO, the assessee never had an opportunity to intimate the AO that notice u/s.143(2) had not been issued. A perusal of the provisions of Sec.143(2) shows that the said notice is not assessment year ITA Nos.1560 & 1597/Hyd/2019 specific but it is return specific. Its time limit is computed from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished. It is mandatory for I.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 & I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment year: 2014-15 M/s Merino Industries Ltd the issuance of notice u/s.143(2) in the event that the AO proposes to make assessment u/s.143(3). In the present case, the AO having not issued notice u/s.143(2) in respect of a valid revised return filed on 26.02.2014 and more so, the said return have not been treated as invalid, the consequential assessment is bad in law, in view of the principles laid down in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon reported in 321 ITR 362 (SC). Further, in view of the position in law that if a revised return is filed u/s.139(5) and if such return is a valid return then the assessment can be completed only on the basis of such revised return as has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Orissa Rural Housing Development Corporation Ltd. reported in 343 ITR 316, the assessment is liable to be annulled.
6. In these circumstances, as notice u/s.143(2) has not been issued in respect of the valid revised return filed by the assessee u/s.139(5) on 26.02.2014, the consequential Assessment Order u/s.143(3) dated 30.03.2014 for the AY 2012-13, in the case of the assessee is bad in law and stands annulled.
7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.22/Mds/2016 is stands allowed, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.351/Mds/2016 is stands dismissed and the CO No.56/Mds/2016 filed by the assessee is stands dismissed."
On further appeal, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and upheld the order of the ACC holding that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was bad in law.
Now, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not a case where the assessee had not filed original return of income. However, the case is that pursuant to filing of revised return of income, the Assessing Officer was supposed to take cognizance of revised return of income and the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in respect of original return of income neither can be treated as an order passed u/s 144 of the Act nor the same could be held to be a valid order as the same has not been passed in respect of valid/revised return of income filed by the assessee. Therefore, this legal issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is hereby quashed.
(C) The Ld A.O mentioned wrongly that the assessee did not file the revised return as your appellant had filed the revised return within due date on 31- 03-2016 and claimed deduction u/s 801A. The copy of original return and revised return as attached herewith. Vide Page No-10 10 11 with our additional paper book. The ignorance of our valid revised return by the Ld Assessing Officer is attracted & invited to invalid the assessment order as we argued during hearing and also mentioned herein above under clause no-1. (D) Your honour is requested to vide the para no 6.1.1 of the order of CIT(A) in which the CIT(A) mentioned that "No claim has been made regarding 801A in Return of Income u/s 139(1)/139(5)" It is very clear that the CIT(A) also ignored our revised return as filed u/s 139(5) and mentioned the above fact which is wrong. (E) Your honour is requested to vide the para no 6.1.2 of page no 15 of the CIT(A)'s order in which our eligibility is ascertained. The CIT(A) mentioned the right fact of claiming deduction on the market value basis not based on 15% mark up on cost of production of energy.