1981 (4) TMI 27 - HC - Income Tax

Case Remanded to Tribunal to Review Tax Determination Timeliness

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West Bengal V Versus Smt. Krishwanti Punjabi And Another

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West Bengal V Versus Smt. Krishwanti Punjabi And Another - [1983] 139 ITR 703, 23 CTR 255, 7 TAXMANN 195 Issues Involved:1. Validity and legality of the assessment order for the assessment year 1964-65.2. Requirement of signing the demand notice, challan, and assessment Form No. I.T. 30 by the Income-tax Officer (ITO).Summary:Issue 1: Validity and legality of the assessment order for the assessment year 1964-65The primary question referred to the court was whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment order for the assessment year 1964-65, made by the ITO, was invalid and illegal. The assessee contended that the assessment order was invalid as the demand notice, challan, and assessment Form No. I.T. 30 were not signed by the ITO. The Tribunal observed that the notice of demand was not signed by the ITO, which was a curable defect. However, the Tribunal found that Form No. I.T. 30 was not signed by the ITO, making the assessment order invalid and illegal. The Tribunal relied on the decision in B. K. Gooyee v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 109, which emphasized the necessity of signing Form No. I.T. 30 for completing the assessment.Issue 2: Requirement of signing the demand notice, challan, and assessment Form No. I.T. 30 by the ITOThe court examined the provisions of s. 143 and s. 153 of the I.T. Act, 1961, and s. 23 and s. 34 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. It was noted that the assessment must determine not only the total income but also the tax payable. The court found no statutory requirement that Form No. I.T. 30 must be signed by the ITO. The court referred to the case of Sushil Chandra Ghose v. ITO [1959] 35 ITR 379, where it was observed that the original computation in Form No. I.T. 30 requires the signature of the ITO. However, these observations were considered obiter dicta and not binding. The court concluded that the essential requirement was the determination of the tax payable within the time stipulated under s. 153, irrespective of whether Form No. I.T. 30 was signed by the ITO.Conclusion:The case was remanded to the Tribunal to determine whether there was an actual determination of the tax payable by the ITO within the time stipulated under s. 153 of the I.T. Act, and to make a further statement of the case to the court. The Tribunal was directed to submit a fresh statement of the case within six months, giving both parties an opportunity to adduce further evidence. There was no order as to costs.