| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2008 SLG 2616 2008 SLD 2616 (2008) 306 ITR 230 (2007) 165 TAXMAN 314 |
Delhi High Court
MADAN B. LOKUR AND S. MURALIDHAR, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MADAN B. LOKUR AND S. MURALIDHAR, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411
Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435
Law:
Section:
2008] 306 ITR 230 [2007] 165 TAXMAN 314 (DELHI) HIGH COURT OF DELHI Bharat Nidhi Ltd.* v. Commissioner of Income-tax MADAN B. LOKUR AND S. MURALIDHAR, JJ. IT REFERENCE NO. 244 OF 1984 AUGUST 27, 2007 Section 140(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Return of income - By whom to be signed - Assessee filed its return signed by its secretary, but, on being pointed out by Assessing Officer removed defect and filed a fresh return duly signed by its Managing Director - Assessing Officer while completing assessment, held that original return was invalid - Commissioner (Appeals) held that original return suffered from a curable defect, which was cured by assessee by filing a return duly signed by its MD - Whether since assessee had made an error in nature of a defect which was removed by filing a fresh return signed by its MD, Tribunal was wrong in treating initial return as an invalid return on ground that it had not been signed in accordance with provisions of section 140(c) - Held, yes CASES REFERRED TO CIT v. Royal Textiles [1979] 120 ITR 506 (Mad.) [Para 2] and CIT v. Masoneilan (India) Ltd.[2000] 242 ITR 569/[1999] 107 Taxman 559 (Ker.) [Para 3]. S. Rajjapa and Rajneesh Goyal for the Petitioner. Sanjeev Sabharwal for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J. - The following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') : "Whether, on facts and circumstance of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in treating the return filed on 27-8-1976 as an invalid return on the ground that it had not been signed in accordance with the provisions of section 140(c) of the Income-tax Act?" 2. The return of income filed by the assessee, a limited company, on 27-8-1976, was signed by its Secretary. On 30-6-1977 and 1-11-1977, the Income-tax Officer ('ITO') issued notices under section 143(1) of the Act but it was not pointed out to the assessee that in terms of section 140(c) of the Act, the return ought to have been signed by its Managing Director or one of its Directors in the absence of the Managing Director. It is only during the course of theβ¦
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492