9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e irregularity was curable and the doctrine of relation back was rightly applied. – further it is held that revised return relates back to original filing date so valid return filed subsequently should not be rejected on account of lateness - 644 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 10-9-2009 - A. K. SI KRI and VALM IKI J. MEHTA JJ. Ms. P. L. Bansal with Paras Chaudhary for the appellant. Amol Sinha for the respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by 1. A. K. SI KRI J. —The assessee had filed its return on November 1, 2004 declaring loss of Rs. 10,38,98,405. Thereafter, revised return was filed on October 5, 2005, declaring loss of Rs. 7,20,50,041. The Assessing Officer, during the assessment proceedings, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 230; [2007] 165 Taxman 314. In that case, the assessee-company had filed its return of income on August 27, 1976, which was signed by its secretary. The notices were issued to the assessee on June 30, 1977, and November 1, 1977, in which it was not pointed out that the return ought to have been signed by the managing director or one of the directors in the absence of the managing director. In the course of assessment proceedings, it was pointed out that the return was defective. Thereafter, the assessee filed a return on November 27, 1978, which was signed by the managing director. On these facts, the Income-tax Officer completed the assessment on the second return, but held that the original return was invali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return accompanied by audited accounts and duly verified by the managing director. The 1earned counsel for the assessee had also placed before us the decision of the hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Bhiwani Synthetic Ltd. [2006] 199 Taxation 204. In that case, the return was signed by the general manager, finance and company secretary of the assessee. The return was held to be invalid. The hon'ble court pointed out that a power of attorney was given by the assessee to the general manager, finance, viz., for signing the return and in such a situation it would have been appropriate if an opportunity had been granted to the assessee to file the return verified by the managing director or the director. Therefore, there was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the doctrine of relation back was not applied in the said case. Therefore, a fine distinction is to be drawn and understood. If the irregularity in the original return is curable, then the doctrine of relation back would apply, on the other hand, if there is a fundamental defect in the original return, which cannot be cured, then such a doctrine cannot be applied. It is clear that the secretary has signed the return who is otherwise, as per the provisions of the Companies Act, is competent to sign. The provision of section 140 of the Income-tax Act mandates that the managing director or some other responsible officers can sign. Because of this reason, we are of the opinion that in a case like this, the irregularity was curable and the doc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
