2008 (6) TMI 292

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the CIT(A) has given in the impugned order is that the IT return filed by the assessee is non est for the reason that it was not signed and verified in accordance with the scheme of section 140(c) of the Act. As a corollary to this finding, learned CIT(A) also holds that the loss incurred by the assessee in this year is not eligible for carry forward and set off against future incomes. It is this finding which is mainly challenged in the appeal before us. 3. Before we address ourselves to the question whether or not the return filed by the assessee was indeed not signed and verified in accordance with the scheme of section 140(c), it is essential to understand the nature of assessee-company before us. The related facts are not in disput....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered factual matrix of the case as also the applicable legal position. 5. We agree with the learned CIT(A) that under section 140(c), and in the case of a company, an Income-tax return is to be signed and verified by managing director of the company, and where there is no managing director of the company, it is to be signed by any of the directors. There is admittedly no director in the assessee-company, and, therefore, there is no occasion for signing of Income-tax return by the managing director. The next thing to be seen is whether there is a director in this company. There is no person by the designation of director in th....