Suhas Chandra Sen, J. - (1.) The Tribunal has referred the following three questions of law to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the return signed by the liquidators in the present case is non est in law and in view thereof, the assessment is void ab initio ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 92,565 is allowable deduction under Section 57(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or otherwise, while computing the total income of the assessee for the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1976-77 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in computing the income of Rs. 1,001 under Section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, full effect should have been given to Section 41(2) read with Section 41(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?"
(2.) The assessment year involved is the assessment year 1976-77, for which the relevant accounting year is the financial year ended March 31, 1976.
(3.) The facts as narrated by the Tribunal in the statement of case are as under : The assessee-company had gone into voluntary liquidation pursuant to the special resolution of the assessee-company at the annual general meeting of the shareholders of the said company held on September 30, 1966. By that resolution, it was decided that the assessee-company be wound up voluntarily as a members' voluntary winding-up. By another resolution, A.G.M. Twining, A.B. Bhattacharya and L.H. Das, all of Calcutta, were appointed liquidators of the assessee-company for the purpose of winding up its affairs and distributing its assets with joint and several powers detailed therein including the authority to them to act jointly or severally and to exercise all or any of the powers enumerated in Clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 457 of the Companies Act, 1956. Therefore, for the year under consideration, the liquidator, Shri A. B. Bhattacharya, for himself and the other liquidators filed the return of income for the year under consideration. After the assessment for the year under consideration was completed by the Income-tax Officer, he (said liquidator), filed the appeal both before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. The preliminary objection of learned counsel for the assessee, Mr. Guha, is that the return filed on behalf of the assessee-company is non est in law, because it is not signed by the director or the managing director as required by Section 140(c) of the Act. It was signed by the aforesaid liquidator who, according to Mr. Guha, was not competent either to sign or to verify the return on behalf of the assessee for the year under consideration. Since the return was non est, so was the position of the appeals filed by the said liquidator both before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and before the Tribunal.;