2009 (9) TMI 70

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....verified in accordance with the provisions of section 140 of the Income-tax Act and revised return was also filed belatedly. In fact, the earlier return was filed by the company secretary of the assessee-company and the revised return filed was signed by the managing director. On this ground, the Assessing Officer, therefore, took the date on which the revised return was filed as the date of filing return for the first time and proceeding that the return was filed belatedly, he did not take the same into consideration. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer. However, in further appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has held that signing of the return by the secretary was a curable irregular....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is otherwise a person who is competent to sign documents on behalf of the assessee although he may not be competent to sign a return under section 140 of the Act. The moment this defect was pointed out to the assessee, a fresh return was filed, which was signed by the managing director. In the past, the returns of income had been signed by the secretary. On the basis of these facts, there could be no doubt that the assessee had made an error, which was in the nature of a defect as explained by the hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Masoneilan (India) Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 569 and that the defect was removed by filing a fresh return signed by the managing director of the assessee-company. Therefore, this would then relate back to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ls) which prejudiced the cause of the Revenue when such a direction was given by him in his order. W find that this case also suggests that in a case of defect in verifying the return, an opportunity ought to have been granted 'to the assessee cure the defect, which was not done in this case. In any case, the assessee had filed a valid return subsequently, which in terms of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bharat Nidhi Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 230 (Delhi) would relate back to the date on which the first return was flied. Respectfully following this decision, it is held that the assessment shall be made on the footing that the assessee had filed a return on November 1, 2004." 2. We are of the opinion that the....