TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (10) TMI 115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 31st Dec., 1979, declaring a loss of Rs. 4,69,077. Revised return was relied on 28th Oct., 1980, declaring a loss of Rs. 23,19,549. Both these returns were signed by Chief Accounts Officer. The assessment was completed under s. 143(3)/144B computing net loss at Rs. 1,02,905. The CIT(A) set aside the assessment order passed on 5th June, 1981. The Department went in appeal before the Tribunal against order of CIT(A) setting aside the assessment order. The Departmental appeal appears to have been dismissed on 13th Sept., 1985. The assessee filed another return on 4th Nov., 1985, which was by the Managing Director. This return was filed on the date of hearing fixed by the Assessing Officer. The assessment was completed under s. 144 on 19th N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 31st March, 1989. These assessments were completed in pursuance of the directions issued by the CIT(A). Since the original returns were filed by the Chief Accounts Officer and not by the managing director of the assessee-company, as required under s. 140(c) of the IT Act, the Assessing Officer had held that no valid return was filed and, therefore, the proceedings were liquidated. In taking this view, he had also placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's case for the asst. yr. 1978-79. 5. The assessee appealed before the CIT(A), but failed. Hence, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee has admitted that the original returns were signed and verified by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions issued by the CIT(A) in his order dt. 17th June, 1986. According to him, it was not open to the Assessing Officer to travel beyond such direction and as such the Assessing Officer could not hold that the return filed by the assessee was invalid and he could not liquidate the proceedings. 7. As regards the asst. yr. 1979-80, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessment was completed ex parte on 25th March, 1982, and that assessment was reopened under the provisions of s. 146 of the Act and fresh assessment order was passed on 15th Dec., 1984. This assessment order was set aside in appeal by the CIT(A) vide his order dt. 30th April, 1986, and the Assessing Officer was directed to make a fresh assessment afte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d come on the statute book. This provision had become effective from 1st Sept., 1980. By virtue of this provision, it is contended that the defect noticed in the return should have been intimated to the assessee, so that the assessee could rectify the defect. In the instant case, it is submitted that no such notice was issued to the assessee. It has been argued that without issue of such notice, the Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the returns as invalid and liquidating the proceedings. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the assessee had also referred to the following decisions: (i) IAC vs. Punjab United Pesticides Chemicals Ltd. (1989) 31 ITD 535; (ii) Avon Sales Corpn. vs. ITO (1993) 47 TTJ (Del) 29....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have not been agitated in second appeal. Thus, it is contended that the Assessing Officer was not at all entitled to liquidate the proceedings. 12. Opposing the above submissions of the assessee, the learned Departmental Representative has supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. According to him, the returns originally filed by the assessee were invalid, inasmuch as, they were not signed by the managing director of the assessee-company. He has also submitted that the revised returns signed by the managing director was filed beyond the limitation prescribed by law and as such no cognizance of such returns can be taken. He has also pointed out that the similar point had come up in the assessee's own case in the asst. yr. 1978-79 ....