TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1968, was not valid ? " The factual back-drop giving rise to this question may be noticed : On May 22, 1968, Dr. Krishan Lal Goyal, an individual assessee, submitted a return of his income for the assessment year 1968-69. The ITO completed the assessment under s. 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short " the Act "), on May 23, 1968, on the basis of this return. On January 22, 1969, the assessee filed an application under s. 154 of the Act, stating therein that the income-tax return filed by him (on which the assessment order was passed) was unverified and mostly unfilled and as such it was no return in the eye of law. Section 139 of the Act and r. 12(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as " the Rules lay down ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny authority in support of the proposition that an unverified return of total income could form the basis of a valid assessment. Relevant statutory provision of the Act as they stood at the relevant time may be noticed at this stage: "s. 139. Every person, if his total income ... exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, shall furnish return of his income ... in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner ......... .." " s. 140. The return under section 139 shall be signed and verified- (a) in the case of an individual, by the individual himself ; where the individual is absent from India, by the individual concerned or by some person duly authorised by him in this behalf; and where the individual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... There is no provision in the Act permitting an assessee to amend his return. He can only, in certain specified cases, file a fresh return but he cannot add to or delete from the return, already filed. It is not necessary to dilate upon the point, because the matter is not res integra. In Waman Padmanabh Dande v. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 339, a Division Bench of the Nagpur High Court observed (at p. 343): " Where a return made is not in the prescribed form, or is not signed and verified as required by the prescribed form, it is an invalid return and can be ignored by the Income-tax Officer who can thereupon make an assessment under section 23(4) of the Act." The highest court in Commr. of Agrl. LT. v. Sri Keshab Chandra Mandal [1950] 18 ITR 569 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee, they were invalid and should be regarded as non-existent. " are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, the particulars of profits and gains of the business had not been given in the returns, though the returns had been signed and verified by the assessee. In view of the preponderance of authorities in favour of the opposite view, we cannot accept the statement of law enunciated in this decision. To sum up, a return which is not verified does not conform to the salient requisites of a return as required by s. 139/140 of the Act and r. 12 of the Rules, and is an invalid return and no assessment can be framed on the basis of such a return . We answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
