Answer any two out of the following 3 sub-parts, viz. (i), (ii) & (iii) Your answer should cover: Issue involvedProvisions applicableAnalysis…

(i) Issue Involved: The issue under consideration is whether, for the purpose of computing limitation period under section 143 (2) , the relevant date is the date of filing of the original return of income or the date of removal of defects in response to a notice issued under section 139 (9) . Provision applicable: Section 139 (1) mandates the filing of a return of income by an assessee, while section 139 (9) provides an opportunity to rectify defects in the return within a prescribed time frame without filing a fresh return. Section 143 (2) requires the Assessing Officer to issue a notice for scrutiny assessment within three months from the end of the financial year in which the return was filed. Analysis: Since the return was defective, M/s D Pvt. Ltd. was called upon to remove such defects, which were removed on 10th April, 2025, and it 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 i.e., 15th October, 2024. Consequently, the limitation for issuance of notice under section 143 (2) would be 30th June, 2025 i.e., three months from the end of the financial year in which the return under section 139 (1) was filed. Conclusion: In the present case, the Assessing Officer is empowered to issue a notice under section 143 (2) up to 30th June, 2025 and not up to 30th June, 2026. Accordingly, the contention of D Pvt. Ltd. is correct. Note – The facts given in the question are similar to the facts in DCIT vs Travel Designer India Pvt. Ltd. v. (2025) 482 ITR 283 (SC). The above answer is based on the rationale of the Apex Court ruling in the said case.