TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he documents on record particularly the AO's letter dt. 2nd March, 1992 and the assessee's reply dt. 16th March, 1992 filed along with the return stating clearly that the impugned return was not signed. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 56,97,757 pertaining to unaccounted production because; (i) He did not appreciate the evidence put forth by the AO in the form of consumption of electricity vis-a-vis the production shown restricting his finding only to the electricity bills of the BSES. (ii) Not considering the evidence brought out by the AO that the amount of electricity expenses debited in the books are not supported by proper documents. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred on law and in facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,44,000 on account of forward sales notwithstanding the fact that the assessee failed to produce before the AO as well as before the learned CIT(A) any evidence of the transactions which resulted in the accrual of the alleged income. 4. The appellant submits that the impugned additions were (sic-not) made for valid reasons. 5. The appellant prays that the order of the learned CIT(A) on the above grounds be set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bad in law. It was claimed that in view of the provisions of s. 153(1), the assessment made on 25th Feb., 1994 is barred by limitation. Zerox copy of the return filed on 5th July, 1989 was also filed. 3.2 After considering the submissions and perusing the material on record, the CIT(A) held that the assessment passed by the AO is barred by limitation. Accordingly, the same was cancelled. The findings of the learned CIT(A) are given in para 2 of his order at pp. 2 and 3 which are as under: "The assessee had filed a zerox copy of the return filed with the learned AO on 5th July, 1989. This shows that the acknowledgement form on the return was duly signed by the director and so was the verification on p. 4 of the return. It appears that prima facie the signatures on the acknowledgement form and on p. 4 of the return differ in form. At the same time, it cannot be said that the return was not signed. Since, the person signing the return has been appearing during the course of assessment proceedings, if the officer was of the opinion that it has not been properly signed by the authorized person, he should have got confirmed whether the Signatures are of the same person who was the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in CIT vs. Dr. Krishan Lal Goyal (1984) 43 CTR (P H) 135 : (1984) 148 ITR 283 (P H); CIT vs. Masoneilan (India) Ltd. (1999) 157 CTR (Ker) 482 : (2000) 242 ITR 569 (Ker) and Commr. of Agrl. IT vs. Keshab Chandra Mandal (1950) 18 ITR 569 (SC). In the last, it was submitted by the learned Departmental Representative that the order passed by the AO under s. 143(3) r/w s. 148 is a valid order, therefore, cancelling the assessment order at the end of the learned CIT(A) should be quashed and the order of the AO should be restored. 3.5 In reply, the learned counsel of the assessee placed reliance on the order of the CIT(A). It was further submitted that with the direction of the Tribunal, the signatures of the director were sent to the Government examiner for verification and the examiner has given his report that: "it has not been possible to ascertain to absolute or relative age of these signatures". Attention of the Bench was drawn on the copy of the report dt. 23rd Jan., 2007 placed on record. It was further submitted that 78 signatures of the director of the company who signed the return were obtained and it can be seen that all the 78 Signatures differ from each other. It was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under s. 143(1)(a). We further noted that thereafter the AO took the return for scrutiny purpose and issued notice under s. 142(1) along with questionnaire on 25th Oct., 1990. The assessee filed reply in response to the above notice on 9th Nov., 1990. Thereafter further details were also filed by letters dt. 15th Nov., 1990 and 20th Jan., 1991. Various other details as required by the AO were also filed. From these facts, it is seen that the AO never doubted that the return is defective and as a result of that the return was processed under s. 143(1)(a). Thereafter, the AO chose to do the scrutiny of the return and issued notice under s. 143(2)/142(1). The assessee appeared before the AO on various dates and filed reply. At no point of time it was informed to the assessee that the return is defective being unsigned or defective Signatures, therefore, the same is non est. It is only on 4th March, 1992 the AO issued notice under s. 148 along with a letter to the assessee informing that the return is non est. The proceedings were going on for almost two years and at no point of time it was pointed out that the return is not valid. In our view, it may be one of the reasons that the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
