Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Provided that no notice under this sub-section shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished."

8. A bare reading of provisions of sub-section (2) to Section 143 would show that the notice u/s. 143(2) the Act is with reference to the return furnished u/s. 139 of the Act. In the instant case the Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s. 143(2) on 05/09/2014 with reference to original return of income filed by the assessee on 19/11/2013. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 31/03/2015, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer and the assessment was framed on the revised return of income. Once a valid revised return of income is filed, the original return is deemed to be withdrawn. In other words, a valid revised return of income filed u/s. 139(5) of the Act substitutes the original return filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Thus, it is considered as assessee's final return of income. The Assessing Officer is under obligation to issue notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act in respect of return of income which he accepts for completing the assessment. As pointed earlier, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act is specific to the return of income, not the Assessment Year. Therefore, we are of considered view that non-issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act after the assessee had filed revised return of income is an incurable defect and is fatal to the assessment order passed without the said notice.

6

ITA NO.2824/MUM/2023(A.Y.2013-14)

9. The Tribunal in the case of Yes & Yes Hitech Premier Homes vs. ITO (supra) under similar set of facts held the assessment bad in law in the absence of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. The relevant extract of the findings of the Tribunal on the issue are as under:

"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 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 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."

Similar view has been taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Ashok Reddy Cheruvu vs. DCIT (supra). In so far as the decision rendered in the case of Padmini Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra) we are not in agreement with the same. The original return of income u/s. 139(1) and the revised return of income u/s. 139(5) of the Act are returns under different provisions filed under ITA NO.2824/MUM/2023(A.Y.2013-14) different circumstances. Therefore, it cannot be said that the revised return has no status in the eye of law. The statute provides for filing of revised return under specific circumstances. The revised return of income filedu/s. 139(5) of the Act substitutes the return filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act, if, filed within the period of limitation.