You cured a s.139(9) defect months after filing. Does the six-month clock for the s.143(2) notice run from the original return or from the corrected one?
From the original return - on the authority of the jurisdictional High Court, which the Tribunal reproduced and adopted. The Gujarat High Court in Kunal Structure (India) (P.) Ltd. v DCIT held that there is no concept of a corrected return under the Act, that s.139(9) calls for removal of the defects in the return already filed and not for a fresh return, and that the removal of the defects relates back to the filing of the original return, so that it is the original filing date that governs the limitation under s.143(2). The Tribunal set that judgment out at para 16 and then held, in its own words at para 17, that the s.143(2) notice having been issued beyond the limit prescribed under the Act, the assessment framed was without jurisdiction and was directed to be quashed.
Decided by the ITAT (Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member and Suchitra R. Kamble, Judicial Member) on 2024-02-21, reported as ITA No. 681/Ahd/2023, assessment year 2017-18. It bears on section 139(9), section 139(9) proviso, section 143(2), section 143(1), section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny, How Tax Law Is Read and Appeals matters.
It is the convenient Tribunal authority on relation-back, and it shows the consequence being drawn to its jurisdictional conclusion - the assessment quashed, not merely the limitation recalculated. But the weight is in the decision behind it: the reasoning is the Gujarat High Court's in Kunal Structure, which is binding in that State and is what should be cited first. Where the department has counted the s.143(2) limitation from the date the defect was cured, that is the answer, and this order is the worked example of it.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee filed its return for assessment year 2017-18 on 28 October 2017. A notice of defect under s.139(9) was issued on 6 June 2018 with reminders on 22 June 2018 and 10 July 2018. The assessee rectified the defect on 19 August 2018. The return was processed and the preliminary assessment completed on 30 March 2019, and a refund was issued on 9 April 2019. The notice under s.143(2) was issued on 22 September 2019.
The appeal was allowed. The Bench's own holding is at para 17: in the facts of the present case the jurisdictional notice under s.143(2) having been issued beyond the limit prescribed under the Act, the assessment framed is without jurisdiction and is directed to be quashed. The grounds on merits were rendered academic and were not adjudicated. The relation-back proposition on which that conclusion depends is not the Tribunal's own: it belongs to the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Kunal Structure (India) (P.) Ltd. v DCIT, which the Bench reproduced at para 16 and adopted.
The Bench reproduced the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in Kunal Structure (India) (P.) Ltd. v DCIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 577 (Guj), which counsel had placed before it (para 5), introducing the extract at para 16 with the observation that the High Court 'noted the same from the reading of section 139(9) of the Act'. The reasoning inside that extract is the High Court's, and its voice gives it away - it speaks of 'the petitioner' and 'the learned counsel for the petitioner' and of what 'the Bombay High Court' had held. The High Court held that there is no concept of a corrected return of income under the Act; that s.139(9) requires the removal of defects in the return already filed and not the filing of a fresh return, so that the use of the expression 'corrected return' in the notice does not mean that a fresh return has been filed; that the proviso confirms the defect remains curable up to or before the assessment is made; and that the action of removal of the defects relates back to the filing of the original return, so that it is the date of filing of the original return that is taken for computing the period of limitation under s.143(2). Having set that out, the Bench's own step is one sentence at para 17: on these dates the s.143(2) notice was out of time measured from the original return, so the assessment was without jurisdiction and was quashed. The order also records that the return was processed and a refund issued after the defect was removed.
the assessment framed is without jurisdiction and, therefore, directed to be quashed
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppFrom the original return - on the authority of the jurisdictional High Court, which the Tribunal reproduced and adopted. The Gujarat High Court in Kunal Structure (India) (P.) Ltd. v DCIT held that there is no concept of a corrected return under the Act, that s.139(9) calls for removal of the defects in the return already filed and not for a fresh return, and that the removal of the defects relates back to the filing of the original return, so that it is the original filing date that governs the limitation under s.143(2). The Tribunal set that judgment out at para 16 and then held, in its own words at para 17, that the s.143(2) notice having been issued beyond the limit prescribed under the Act, the assessment framed was without jurisdiction and was directed to be quashed. This was decided by the ITAT (Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member and Suchitra R. Kamble, Judicial Member) and bears on section 139(9), section 139(9) proviso, section 143(2), section 143(1), section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No. 681/Ahd/2023, assessment year 2017-18. It is the convenient Tribunal authority on relation-back, and it shows the consequence being drawn to its jurisdictional conclusion - the assessment quashed, not merely the limitation recalculated. But the weight is in the decision behind it: the reasoning is the Gujarat High Court's in Kunal Structure, which is binding in that State and is what should be cited first. Where the department has counted the s.143(2) limitation from the date the defect was cured, that is the answer, and this order is the worked example of it. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Put three dates on one page: the date of the original return, the date the defect was removed, and the date of the s.143(2) notice.
The assessee filed its return for assessment year 2017-18 on 28 October 2017. A notice of defect under s.139(9) was issued on 6 June 2018 with reminders on 22 June 2018 and 10 July 2018. The assessee rectified the defect on 19 August 2018. The return was processed and the preliminary assessment completed on 30 March 2019, and a refund was issued on 9 April 2019. The notice under s.143(2) was issued on 22 September 2019. The matter was decided on 2024-02-21 by the ITAT (Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member and Suchitra R. Kamble, Judicial Member). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The appeal was allowed. The Bench's own holding is at para 17: in the facts of the present case the jurisdictional notice under s.143(2) having been issued beyond the limit prescribed under the Act, the assessment framed is without jurisdiction and is directed to be quashed. The grounds on merits were rendered academic and were not adjudicated. The relation-back proposition on which that conclusion depends is not the Tribunal's own: it belongs to the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Kunal Structure (India) (P.) Ltd. v DCIT, which the Bench reproduced at para 16 and adopted.
The Bench reproduced the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in Kunal Structure (India) (P.) Ltd. v DCIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 577 (Guj), which counsel had placed before it (para 5), introducing the extract at para 16 with the observation that the High Court 'noted the same from the reading of section 139(9) of the Act'. The reasoning inside that extract is the High Court's, and its voice gives it away - it speaks of 'the petitioner' and 'the learned counsel for the petitioner' and of what 'the Bombay High Court' had held. The High Court held that there is no concept of a corrected return of income under the Act; that s.139(9) requires the removal of defects in the return already filed and not the filing of a fresh return, so that the use of the expression 'corrected return' in the notice does not mean that a fresh return has been filed; that the proviso confirms the defect remains curable up to or before the assessment is made; and that the action of removal of the defects relates back to the filing of the original return, so that it is the date of filing of the original return that is taken for computing the period of limitation under s.143(2). Having set that out, the Bench's own step is one sentence at para 17: on these dates the s.143(2) notice was out of time measured from the original return, so the assessment was without jurisdiction and was quashed. The order also records that the return was processed and a refund issued after the defect was removed. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "the assessment framed is without jurisdiction and, therefore, directed to be quashed" The decision followed or applied Kunal Structure (India) (P.) Ltd. v DCIT, [2020] 113 taxmann.com 577 (Guj) - the jurisdictional High Court judgment reproduced at para 16 and adopted; the relation-back reasoning in this order is that judgment's.
It was decided by the ITAT on 2024-02-21 and is reported as ITA No. 681/Ahd/2023, assessment year 2017-18. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 139(9), section 139(9) proviso, section 143(2), section 143(1), section 139(1), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The appeal was allowed. The Bench's own holding is at para 17: in the facts of the present case the jurisdictional notice under s.143(2) having been issued beyond the limit prescribed under the Act, the assessment framed is without jurisdiction and is directed to be quashed. The grounds on merits were rendered academic and were not adjudicated. The relation-back proposition on which that conclusion depends is not the Tribunal's own: it belongs to the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Kunal Structure (India) (P.) Ltd. v DCIT, which the Bench reproduced at para 16 and adopted. It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny, How Tax Law Is Read and Appeals matters, on section 139(9), section 139(9) proviso, section 143(2), section 143(1), section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member and Suchitra R. Kamble, Judicial Member. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Measure the s.143(2) limitation from the original return; if the notice falls outside it, take the point as jurisdictional and take it first. Cite Kunal Structure (India) (P.) Ltd. v DCIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 577 (Guj) for the proposition and this order as the Tribunal applying it; a High Court judgment carries the argument, an order adopting it does not. Resist any suggestion that the response to a s.139(9) notice is a fresh return; the notice's use of the words corrected return does not make it one. Where the department processed the corrected return under s.143(1) and issued a refund, put that on record as its own acceptance that the return was valid.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. No later order applying, doubting or dissenting from this order was located on indiankanoon. The order rests on the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Kunal Structure (India) (P.) Ltd. v DCIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 577 (Guj), which it reproduces and follows and which was not located as having been doubted or overruled; anyone relying on the relation-back proposition should go to that judgment. The same proposition appears in the Kolkata Bench's decision in JCIT v. Tata Cummins Ltd. [2002] 82 ITD 798 (Kol) and the Mumbai Bench's in ACIT v. Prime Securities Ltd. [2005] 95 ITD 249 (Mum); neither is cited in this order and neither is the authority it rests on. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The Tribunal's own reasoning here is thin. Para 16 is an extended reproduction of the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Kunal Structure (India) (P.) Ltd. v DCIT, carrying that judgment's own paragraph numbering, and the Bench's own words resume only at para 17. An order that adopts a High Court judgment without adding reasoning of its own is worth less as authority than the judgment it adopts, and the judgment is binding in Gujarat in any event. No reporter citation is printed on the copy read. The Members' names were taken from the order itself on a second fetch; indiankanoon's own bench line was not relied on. The order does not set out the assessment order date, so the period between the s.143(2) notice and the assessment cannot be stated from the document. A check against the document corrected the attribution: the central relation-back holding and the key quotation had been pinned to para 16 as the Tribunal's own, when para 16 is inside the Kunal Structure extract; the Bench's own holding is at para 17, Kunal Structure has been added to the authorities followed, and the validity note - which had named two uncited ITAT orders while omitting the binding High Court decision the order actually rests on - has been rewritten. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was allowed. The Bench's own holding is at para 17: in the facts of the present case the jurisdictional notice under s.143(2) having been issued beyond the limit prescribed under the Act, the assessment framed is without jurisdiction and is directed to be quashed. The grounds on merits were rendered academic and were not adjudicated. The relation-back proposition on which that conclusion depends is not the Tribunal's own: it belongs to the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Kunal Structure (India) (P.) Ltd. v DCIT, which the Bench reproduced at para 16 and adopted.
TaxSphere, “Aark Infosoft Pvt Ltd v ACIT”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/aark-infosoft-v-acit-139-9-cure-relates-back-143-2-limitation/ (validity last checked 2026-09-17)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The officer treated some of your s.153A returns as defective for non-payment of self-assessment tax and others as valid, on the same facts. Can the Tribunal put that right?
You missed the fifteen days on a s.139(9) notice and the officer has written back that your return is invalid. Is there anything left to do?
You never asked the Assessing Officer for more time, the return went invalid for want of proof of tax, and you have gone to the Commissioner under s.264. Will that work?
Neither your original nor your revised return carried the self-assessment tax. The officer ignored that and assessed you on the original return. Is the assessment good?
