VANAJA TEXTILES LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS original petition is filed by the petitioner to quash exhibit P-9 and for declaration that the petitioner is entitled to benefits of immunity under the amnesty scheme declared under exhibits P-10 to P-19 in respect of the assessment year 1986-87 and to declare that the prosecution launched by the second respondent against the petitioner in CC No. 66 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam, is unwarranted, unjustified and incompetent.

(2.) THE petitioner filed a return of income on December 31, 1986, declaring a net income of Rs. 8,790 after claiming deduction of more than Rs. 1 crore for depreciation, investment allowance, etc. Subsequently, the petitioner sent exhibit P-1 letter dated February 3, 1987, stating that they are filing a revised return of income for the assessment year 1986-87 for claiming the correct amount of depreciation on the basis of the exact date of installation of machinery. THEy filed a revised return of income on March 11, 1987.

(3.) THEREFORE, merely because of the fact that the return filed by the petitioner on December 31, 1986, is signed by the executive director and not by the managing director or director of the company as stipulated under Section 140(c) of the Act it is non est, is not sustainable since the petitioner has no case that the return filed is not in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. Hence, this contention raised by the petitioner is not sustainable.