TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (1) TMI 12
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4, 1978, over the signature and verification of Mr. N. L. Kanodia, a director, was invalid ? " Shortly stated, the facts are that for the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee-company filed a return of income on February 14, 1978. The return was signed and verified by one Shri N. L. Kanodia, director-cum-general manager of the company. Since this verification was not in accordance with the provision of section 140(c), the Income-tax Officer sent a letter to the managing director of the company pointing out the provision of section 140(c). It was further pointed out that in case the managing director was unable to sign the return due to any unavoidable reason the return of income could be signed by any other director. The managing directo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in not accepting the claim of the assessee on this point, particularly when the assessee had not given any specific reason before the Income-tax Officer as to why the return was not signed by the person concerned. At the hearing before us, Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharjee, learned advocate appearing for the assessee, contended that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in holding that the first return which had been filed was not an invalid return in view of the fact that the then managing director was prevented, by sufficient cause, from signing the return. Secondly, if the return was defective it was the duty of the Income-tax Officer to allow an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....son the return of income could be signed by another director. In the said letter, the Income-tax Officer requested the managing director of the company to let him know whether he was prevented from signing the verification on February 14, 1978, due to any unavoidable reason. He further pointed out that if there was no such cause, the return of income would be invalid and in that event a duly signed and verified return should be filed. On January 28, 1980, the assessee-company submitted a fresh return duly signed and verified by the managing director of the assessee-company. Along with such return, the assessee-company filed a letter dated January 24, 1980, signed by an assistant general manager that the return filed on February 14, 1978,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y 14, 1978, and the second return was filed on January 28, 1980. Therefore, the question of application of section 139(9) would not apply. Even if sub-section (9) was applicable, this sub-section empowered the Income-tax Officer to call upon the assessee to rectify a defect in the return. A return of income has to be regarded as defective only if it contains any of the defects referred to in Explanation to section 139(9). In other words, the provisions of section 139(9) will not be applicable in the case of returns which do not contain any of the specified defects. For the purpose of sub-section (9), a return of income shall be regarded as defective unless the following conditions are fulfilled : (a) the annexures, statements and columns....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are not maintained by the assessee, a statement indicating the amounts of turnover or gross receipts, gross profit, expenses and net profit of the business or profession and the basis on which such amounts have been computed, as also of the amounts of total sundry debtors, sundry creditors, stock-in-trade and cash balance as at the end of the previous year. Thus, the provision makes a distinction between a defective return and an invalid return. A defective return is not ipso facto to be regarded as an invalid return. It is only when a return contains any of the specified defects and the Income-tax Officer, in his discretion, intimates the defect to the assessee and the assessee fails to rectify the same within the specified period, that....