Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

May 2026

S. 119(2)(b) – Intimation u/s. 143(1) – mistake in the original computation – Delay in filing application – In the absence of any intimation or order raising the demand, recovery of such non-existent demand cannot be made – The actual intimation has not been brought on record, nor any proof of service.

By Ajay R. Singh, Advocate
Reading Time 6 mins

3. Paresh M. Shetti Versus Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (PCIT) – 41

[ WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 10371 OF 2025 Dated: APRIL 15, 2026 ]

S. 119(2)(b) – Intimation u/s. 143(1) - mistake in the original computation – Delay in filing application - In the absence of any intimation or order raising the demand, recovery of such non-existent demand cannot be made - The actual intimation has not been brought on record, nor any proof of service.

The Petitioner is a Computer Training Institute, a franchisee of the Computer Management and Information Technology (CMIT), and has been a regular taxpayer for the last 25 years. For the Assessment Year 2008-2009, the Petitioner filed his Income Tax Return through his Chartered Accountant on 31st July 2008. This was the first year of filing e-returns, as the Income Tax Department had transitioned from paper filing to an e-filing mode. According to the Petitioner, the online software through which data was to be entered into the portal did not generate auto-populated tax amounts against the declared incomes. This led to errors, and the amount had to be entered manually.

The Petitioner’s Return was filed on 31st July 2008, which was the last date for filing the Return within the due date. According to the Peti

Read More
Download PDF

You May Also Like

A. Recovery of demand of predecessor company — High Court held that recovery of old demand without assessment order — Unsustainable; B. Power of High Court under Article 226(2) — Territorial jurisdiction of High Court — Cause of action — Assessee successor company post amalgamation — Recovery notice issued upon the assessee in respect of the outstanding demand of the predecessor company — Notice issued in the name of the predecessor company by the AO in Delhi — Transfer of jurisdiction from Delhi to Pune u/s. 127 vide order dated 13/12/2023 — Office of the AO in Delhi — Functus officio — Amendment in Constitution – Place of cause of action determinative — Part cause of action in Pune — Bombay High Court has jurisdiction in the petition filed by the assessee.

Glimpses Of Supreme Court Rulings