Case Law Details
PCIT v. M/S Broadway Shoe Co. (Jammu & Kashmir High Court)
Admittedly in the instant case, the return was filed by the assessee after the time prescribed for filing return under Sections 139(1) and 139(4) had expired. Therefore, the return filed by the assessee has to be treated as non-est. The proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were initiated on the ground that the return for the assessment year 2005-06 was the first ever return filed by the assessee and was filed on 13.02.2008. The Assessing Officer asked to explain the opening capital and source of advances through notices on various dates from December 2012 to February 2013. However, no response was made by the assessee. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer vide draft letter dated 28.02.2013 asked to comply and give response to the draft assessment order on 11.03.2013. The asseessee did not respond to the draft assessment order where certain additions were proposed on account of unexplained opening capital balances of partner, unexplained loan extended to Mr. and Mrs. Shah and disallowance of interest. In absence of any explanation, the Assessing Officer made the additions. The Notice under Section 143(2) is required to be given only when return is furnished. Furnishing of the return is a sine qua non for issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. If no return is furnished by the assessee, there can be no reason for issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
1) This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein-after to be referred to as ‘the Act’), has been filed against order dated 11.08.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar.
2) A Bench of this Court by an order dated 07.02.2018 has admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
