S.C. Sen, J. - (1.) The Tribunal has referred the following three questions of law to this Court under Sec. 256(1) of the Income -tax Act, 1961 ('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 Sec. 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 Sec. 41(2) of the Income -tax Act, full effect should have been given to Sec. 41(2) read with Sec. 41(5) of the Income -tax Act, 1961 The assessment year involved is the assessment year 1976 -77 for which the relevant accounting year is the financial year ended 31 -3 -1976. The facts as narrated by the Tribunal in the statement of case are as under: 2. The assessee -company has gone into voluntary liquidation pursuant to the special resolution of the assessee -company of the annual general meeting of the shareholders of the said company held on 30 -9 -1966. By that resolution, it was decided that the assessee -company be wound up voluntarily as 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 Sec. 457 of the Companies Act, 1956. Therefore, for the year under consideration, the Liquidator Shri A.B. Bhattacharya for himself and the liquidators filed the return of income for the year under consideration. After the assessment for the year under consideration was completed by the ITO, he (said liquidator) filed the appeal both before the Appellate Commissioner and the Tribunal. The preliminary objection of the 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 Sec. 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 AAC and the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal gave consideration to the above arguments and held as under: The factual position in the case of the assessee is similar to that in the case of Upper Ganges Valley Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. (In Voluntary Liquidation). The arguments canvassed before us are also the saint as canvassed before the Tribunal in earlier occasion. We have perused the aforesaid earlier order of the Tribunal. For the reasons stated therein, with which we agree, we held that the return filed by the liquidator in the present case is a valid return, on the basis of which the assessment could be made. The appeals by the liquidator before the AAC and the Tribunal are also competent in law having been validly filed on behalf of the assessee -company (In Voluntary Liquidation).;