The notice issued u/s 143 (2) was challenged on the ground that the notice is barred by limitation . The petitioner filed its return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act on 29.11.2016. Since the return was defective, the petitioner was called upon to remove such defects, which came to be removed on 19.07.2017, that is, within the time allowed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, upon such defects being removed, the return would relate back to the date of filing of the original return, that is, 29.11.2016 and consequently, the limitation for issuance of notice under subsection (2) of section 143 of the Act would be 30.09.2017, viz. six months from the end of the financial year in which the return under subsection (1) of section 139 came to be filed. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the impugned notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act has been issued on 11.08.2018, which is much beyond the period of limitation for issuance of such notice as envisaged under that sub-section. The impugned notice, therefore, is clearly barred by limitation and cannot be sustained. Accordingly the petition was allowed. n (AY. 2016-17)
Travel Designer India P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 269 Taxman 429/191 DTR 310 / 315 CTR 800 (Guj.)(HC).Editorial : Notice in SLP filed by the revenue, Notice issued in SLP filed by revenue , Dy. CIT v. Travel Designer India (P) Ltd. (2021) 283 Taxman 9 (SC)
S. 143(2) : Assessment – Notice – Barred by limitation -Defective return – On removal of defect the return would relate back to the date of filing of the original return- Period of limitation has to be computed from the filing of original return – Order is bad in law [S.139 , Art . 226 ]