TMI Blog1995 (4) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessing Officer under s. 143(1) of the Act. 4. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice under s. 154 for the asst. yrs. 1987-88 to 1989-90 pointing out that the returns filed by the appellant for all the three years were not signed by a director as prescribed under s. 140(c) of the IT Act and hence the returns were non est and therefore all proceedings taken on the basis of such returns were ab initio void. The appellant objected to the proposal stating that the returns were signed by persons having a valid power of attorney to act for and on behalf of the assessee-company. It was pointed out that the returns were acted upon by the Assessing Officer and the assessments were all completed. It was also urged that the requirement of s. 140 was not mandatory but only directory in nature and in view of provisions of s. 292B, the vires of such returns are not open to challenge. Further the assessee's director filed an affidavit incorporating the verification portion of the returns. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and passed an order under s. 154 on 5th March, 1993 holding that the returns of income for the asst. yrs. 1987-88 to 1989-90 being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He rejected the assessee's contention that under s. 154, the Assessing Officer can only amend the order and in the guise of rectification, he cannot cancel the original order itself and for this proposition, the learned CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Blue Star Engg. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 282 (Bom). Therefore, he held that the Assessing Officer had correctly invoked the provisions of s. 154 in respect of the asst. yrs. 1987-88 to 1989-90 and thus dismissed the appeals of the assessee. The assessee is in second appeal. 6. Shri Laxminarayan, the learned Chartered Accountant, has submitted a paper book consisting of the following documents: (a) Return of income for 1987-88; (b) Order dt. 13th March, 1990, under s. 143(1) for asst. yr. 1987-88; (c) Letter dt. 20th July, 1989 from Dy. CIT (Asst.) for 1987-88 and 1988-89; (d) Return of income for 1988-89; (e) Order dt. 29th October, 1991 under s. 143(3) for asst. yr. 1988-89; (f) Return of Income for asst. yr. 1989-90; (g) Notice dt. 9th Oct., 1991 calling for details for 1989-90; (h) Order dt. 1st Jan., 1992 under s. 143(1)(a) r/w s. 154 of the Act; (i) Letter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sri Kesub Chandra Mandal, Allahabad High Court decision reported in CIT vs. M.K. Gupta 1978 CTR (All) 46 : (1978) 113 ITR 473 (All) and Nagpur High Court decision reported in Waman Padmanabh Dande vs. CIT (1952) 22 ITR 339 (Nag), upheld the claim of the assessee. In that very decision, the Punjab Haryana High Court dissented from the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Mohindra Mohan Sirkar vs. ITO (1978) 112 ITR 47 (Cal). Further the views of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Royal Textiles (1980) 14 CTR (Mad) 291 : (1979) 120 ITR 506 (Mad) were sought to be distinguished by the Punjab Haryana High Court. Thus, it cannot be held that the decision of the Punjab Haryana High Court reported in (1984) 43 CTR (P H) 135 : (1984) 148 ITR 283 (P H), is an authority for the proposition that a return otherwise correct and complete should be declared a non est return merely because an officer of the company who had the power of attorney to act for and on behalf of the company had signed the verification part of the return form. Further the authorities ignored the very important point that the decision of the Punjab Haryana High Court was rendered prior to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the company curing the defects by filing affidavits incorporating the verification part of the returns. Further the decision of the Punjab Haryana High Court related to the asst. yr. 1968-69 and s. 292B did not come into force at that point of time. However, the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vanaja Textiles Ltd. vs. IAC(Asst.) ITA No. 167/Coch/88 had held that the validity of a return of a company not signed by the managing director or in his absence by a director is not saved by the provisions of s. 292B of the Act. As a Bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction, we cannot take a different view and the only course open to us would be to refer the issue to a larger Bench, in the event of reservations on our part. We would have certainly adopted such a course if we were called upon to decide about the validity of the return in the original assessments proceedings themselves rather than in a proceeding under s. 154 of the IT Act, 1961. In the case before us, the issue about the validity of the returns signed by the officers of the company (though holding power of attorney) does not arise out of the original assessment proceedings but in a proceeding under s. 154 of the IT Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
