Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Religare Advisors Limited (formerly Religare Wealth Management Limited), filed its income tax return for Assessment Year (AY) 2018–19 on 15.10.2018 under its old name.

Subsequently:

  • The company’s name was officially changed and approved by the Registrar of Companies on 20.12.2018.
  • The change in name was also updated in the PAN database, although the PAN number remained the same.

Despite this:

  • A notice was issued treating the return as defective on the ground that the name in the return did not match the updated PAN database.
  • Multiple communications from the Revenue authorities insisted on filing a revised return.

The petitioner challenged:

  • Order dated 13.02.2020
  • Subsequent communications dated 15.09.2021, 03.11.2022, 09.01.2023, 15.01.2023, and 16.02.2023

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a return filed under the old name of a company (prior to approved name change) can be treated as defective under Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
  2. Whether the Revenue can compel the assessee to file a revised return solely due to change in name post filing.
  3. Whether such defect falls within the scope of “defective return” under the statutory framework.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The return filed on 15.10.2018 was valid and complete in all respects at the time of filing.
  • The name change occurred after filing and was duly approved and recorded.
  • Section 139(9) only permits classification as “defective” if the return lacks prescribed attributes under the Explanation.
  • The insistence on filing a revised return is contrary to statutory provisions.
  • Revenue itself recognized the new name while issuing notice under Section 143(2).
  • Accepting Revenue’s position would create an unreasonable burden to revise multiple past returns.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The assessee should have updated the return in accordance with the PAN database.
  • The petitioner had the option to approach CBDT under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation and extension to file a revised return.
  • The defect arose due to mismatch between name in return and PAN records.

Court’s Findings / Order

The Delhi High Court held:

  • The return filed by the petitioner was valid at the time of filing.
  • A subsequent change in name does not render the return defective.
  • The defect alleged by the Revenue does not fall within the scope of Section 139(9).
  • The Revenue’s insistence on filing a revised return is not aligned with the provisions of the Income Tax Act.

Final Order:

  • Impugned order and communications were set aside.
  • Revenue directed to process the original return and pass consequential orders.

Important Clarification

  • A change in company name after filing of return does not invalidate the return.
  • Section 139(9) cannot be invoked for procedural or technical inconsistencies that do not affect the substance of the return.
  • Authorities must adopt a substance-over-form approach in such cases.

Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/RAS08082023CW47692023_150929.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.