MAYNA MONDAL,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3),, DURGAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1716/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2026AY 2020-20214 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the subsequent return filed on 02.10.21 was not a valid return as it lacked verification. Consequently, the intimation issued under Section 143(1) based on this unverified return was liable to be quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an original return of income. A defect notice was issued, and a subsequent return was filed which included an addition of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The assessee contended that this addition was salary income and the subsequent return was not properly filed.

What were the issues?

Whether an intimation under Section 143(1) can be issued on an unverified return. Whether the addition made in the subsequent return was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 139(9),Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA

Hearing: 06/05/2026Pronounced: 06/05/2026

आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ADDL/JCIT(A)-9, MUMBAI [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no. ADDL/JCIT(A)-9, MUMBAI/10010/2019-20 dated 06.06.2025. 2. Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Advocate represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Kallol Mistry, Sr. DR, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee has filed its original return of income u/s 139(1) on 02.01.21 disclosing an income of Rs.4,85,850/-. It was the submission that a defect notice was issued

2 ITANo.1716/Kol/2025 u/s 139(9) on 11.05.21 without mentioning any defect. It was the submission that the said defect notice also refers to a response submitted on 02.10.21. The said response seems to be in the form of return in ITA-3. It was the submission that in the said return in item no.24 under the head “any other expenses not allowable” Rs.4,00,000/- which has been added. It was the submission that this resulted in the return of income being taken at Rs.8,85,850/- It was the submission that there is no expense which is liable to be disallowed. It was the submission that Rs.4,00,000/- is the salary received by the assessee from the partnership firm namely Srijon Nirman. It was the submission that the return also does not talk of any expenses having been spent at all for any disallowance to be made. It was the submission that in column no.4 in the new return also, the salary from Srijon Nirman (spelling wrongly shown) is shown as Rs.4,00,000/-. It was the submission that this return has not been filed by the assessee in so far as there is no acknowledgement in regard to the said return. It was the submission that return alleged to have been filed on 02.10.21 is not found verified. It was the submission that the income of the assessee is to be computed on the basis of the return filed on 02.01.21 and not on the alleged return dated 02.10.2021. It was the prayer that the intimation issued u/s 143(1) is liable to be quashed.

3 ITANo.1716/Kol/2025 4. In reply, the ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that return has been filed and on that return, intimation has been issued. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that the return alleged to have been filed on 02.10.21 does not have the verification whereas the return filed on 02.01.21 is a verified return. As it is noticed that intimation has been issued on the return which has not been verified, the return cannot be considered as a valid return and consequently the intimation issued u/s 143(1) on the said unverified return dated 02.10.21 is liable to be quashed and I do so. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 06/05/2026.

Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यधनयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 06/05/2026 RS आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent- आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 3. 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata

4 ITANo.1716/Kol/2025 गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6.

सत्यापपत प्रतत //True Copy//

आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER,

(Assistant Registrar) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →