MAHARASHTRA KRISHNA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CORPN Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
Pramod Kumar, A.M. -
(1.) THE assessee before us is a public sector undertaking owned by the Government of Maharashtra, and, by way of this appeal, the assessee has challenged correctness of CIT(A)'s order dt. 31st Aug., 2006, in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yr. 2003-04.
(2.) One of the findings that 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.
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 dispute. The assessee company was formed under Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation Act, 1996, with the main object of construction of dams, canals and other irrigation schemes, and with the object of supply of water to farmers and other consumers, etc. The day-to-day affairs of the assessee company are managed by an 'executive committee', which under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation Act, 1996, consists of (i) Executive Director of the Corporation--designated as Chairman, Executive Committee, (ii) Chief Engineer (Irrigation), Pune Division--designated as member, (iii) Chief Engineer (Specified Project), Pune Division--designated as member, (iv) Chief Engineer of the Corporation--designated as member, (v) Chief, Accounts and Finance of the Corporation--designated as member, and (vi) Superintending Engineer of the Corporation--designated as member secretary. The assessee company does not have anyone with designation of director or managing director. It was in this backdrop that the return of income was signed and verified by the Chief Accounts and Finance of the Corporation. The CIT(A) has held that this action, i.e. signing of IT return by the Chief, Accounts and Finance of the Corporation, is in violation of the scheme of Section 140(c). For this reason, the return has been held to be non est and only fit to be ignored. Learned CIT(A) has also held that this is not a curable defect. Aggrieved by the stand so taken, the assessee is in appeal before us.
(3.) 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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.