BHARAT NIDHI LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following question of law has been referred by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') for our opinion under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ('Act') :

(2.) 1976 as an invalid return on the ground that it had not been signed in accordance with the provisions of s. 140(c) of the IT Act -

(3.) NOT pointed out to the assessee that in terms of s. 140(c) of the Act, the return ought to have been signed by its managing director or one of its directors in the absence of the managing director. It is only during the course of the assessment proceedings that the ITO pointed out to the assessee that the return was defective since it was signed only filed a fresh return which was signed by the managing director of the assessee. The ITO thereafter completed the was held, relying upon s. 292B of the Act as well as a decision of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. Royal Textiles (1980) curable defect and that the defect had been cured by the assessee by filing a return which was duly signed by the managing director.