1991 (7) TMI 150

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8th March, 1982. The ITO further observed that the assessee firm had not complied with the requirements of the said letter. He, therefore, treated the return filed on 30th July, 1981 as an invalid return under s. 139(9) of the Act. He thereafter issued a notice under s. 148 on 21st May, 1982 requiring the assessee to file a return of income in the prescribed form within 30 days of the receipt of the notice. The said notice was served on the assessee on 28th May, 1983. In response thereto the assessee vide letter dt. 18th Nov., 1982 submitted that the verification portion of the return had been signed by the partner Shri R.S. Batra on 18th Nov., 1982 and as such the return might be treated as a valid return and the proceedings initiated unde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....T (1952) 22 ITR 339 (Nag): "Where a return made is not in the prescribed form, or is not signed and verified as required by the prescribed form, it is an invalid return and can be ignored by the ITO who can thereupon make an assessment under s. 23(4) of the Act." The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Mohindra Mohan Sirkar vs. ITO (1978) 112 ITR 47 (Cal) observed as under : "For instance, there may be cases where the returns are incomplete to such an extent that they cannot be regarded as returns in the eye of law, namely, where the return is not signed by the assessee or where a blank return signed by him is filed. In either case, though the return is filed, it will not be treated as a return under law, and the ITO may proceed t....