Decided on October 21,1994



O.P. JAIN, J.M. : - (1.) THESE appeals by the assessee pertain to the asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1979-80, and arise out of the consolidated order of the CIT(A), dt. 7th Feb., 1990. Since the point involved in both the appeals is the same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a consolidated order.
(2.) For the asst. yr. 1977-78, the material facts have been stated by the CIT(A) in his order as under : "Original return, was filed 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 Nov., 1985. This assessment was set aside by the CIT(A) on 17th June, 1986. Thereafter the order dt. 31st March, 1989 liquidating the proceedings was passed." For the asst. yr. 1979-80, the facts have been stated by the CIT(A) as under : "Original return was filed on 31st Dec., 1979, declaring a loss of Rs. 28,65,378. This return was signed by the Chief Accounts Officer. The assessment was completed under S. 144 on 25th March, 1982 taking the total income at Nil. The assessment was reopened under S. 146 on 6th July, 1982. Another order under S. 144 was passed on 15th Dec., 1984 taking the income at Nil against which the appeal preferred before the CIT(A) was decided on 30th April, 1986. In the meanwhile, on 2nd Jan., 1985, i.e., after the completion of assessment under S. 144 on 15th Dec., 1984, the assessee filed another return showing loss of Rs. 25,17,451. This return was signed by the managing director. It may be noted that when this return was filed no proceedings were pending before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has liquidated the proceedings for the reason that the returns were signed by the Chief Accounts Officer, who was not authorised to file the returns. The returns filed were invalid and no assessments could be made on the basis of invalid returns. The Assessing Officer has relied on the order of the Tribunal in the appellants own case for asst. yr. 1978-79."
(3.) THE assessments for the assessment years under consideration were completed on 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 assessees case for the asst. yr. 1978-79.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.