Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the amnesty scheme on the basis of the revised return, and whether the earlier return was invalid for want of signature by the managing director.
Analysis: The return originally filed was challenged as invalid because it was signed by an executive director and not by the managing director or another authorised director. The Court held that such a defect did not render the return non est where the return was otherwise in substance and effect in conformity with the Act, since a defect in verification is curable and does not by itself invalidate the return. On the claim to amnesty, the Court found that the subsequent return was filed only after the Revenue had detected the false claim and the earlier return claiming excessive deductions was not shown to be the result of a bona fide mistake. A revised return filed after detection of falsity is not voluntary and cannot be used to escape the consequences of the original conduct.
Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to amnesty, and the challenge to the order rejecting that benefit failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A revised return filed after discovery of a deliberately false original return is not a voluntary revised return capable of attracting amnesty, and a defect in signature or verification does not make an otherwise conforming return void where the defect is curable under the Act.