https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23099 The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the absence of the authorized person's signature on the application for extension of time for filing a return in Form No. 6 was a curable irregularity and should not invalidate the request. The Court emphasized that while the return itself must be signed and verified, the extension application did not have such a requirement. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer was not justified in rejecting the extension solely based on the lack of the authorized person's signature, supporting the Tribunal's decision to consider the application despite the technical irregularity. en-us Wed, 29 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:23:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23099 The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the absence of the authorized person's signature on the application for extension of time for filing a return in Form No. 6 was a curable irregularity and should not invalidate the request. The Court emphasized that while the return itself must be signed and verified, the extension application did not have such a requirement. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer was not justified in rejecting the extension solely based on the lack of the authorized person's signature, supporting the Tribunal's decision to consider the application despite the technical irregularity. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23099