Case Law Details
CIT vs Bhiwani Synthetics Ltd.- Citation 199 Taxation 204 Validity of Return – Return signed by General Manager of Company The return of the assessee company was signed by the General Manager (Finance). The CIT(A) and the Tribunal directed the A.O. to give an opportunity to the assessee to cure the defect. The company had given a power of attorney to the said General Manager to sign the return. The company had not disowned the return. The order of the Tribunal was not prejudiced to Revenue. No question of law arose.
High Court of Delhi
CIT vs Bhiwani Synthetics Ltd.
ITA No. 228 of 2006
Madan B. Lokur and Vipin Sanghi, JJ4 September 2006
P.L. Bansal with Vishnu Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant
None for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
The Assessee filed its return of income on 30th November, 1994 declaring a loss. It appears that the return was not signed by the Managing Director or the Director of the Assessee, which is a company. The return was signed by the General Manager (Finance) and the Company secretary of the Assessee.
The Assessing Officer, in view of Section 140 (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 came to the conclusion that since the return was not filed by the Managing Director or the Director, it was non est.
Feeling aggrieved by the view taken by the Assessing Officer, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who was of the opinion that the defect was a curable defect and an opportunity ought to have been given to the Assessee to rectify it. He, accordingly, directed the Assessing Officer to give such an opportunity to the Assessee. He also noted the contention of the Assessee that the Assessing Officer ought to have given an opportunity to cure the defect under Section 139(8) of the Act.
Against the order passed by the CIT (A), the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal in which it was contended that the appeal filed by the Assessee before the CIT (A) was not maintainable and that the defect was not a curable defect.
Dismissed.
