1992 (9) TMI 19

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... acts and in the circumstances of the case, the draft of the proposed assessment order forwarded by the Income-tax Officer to the assessee under section 144B(1) of the Income-tax Act which was not signed by the Income-tax Officer was a valid draft ?" By consent, the first question is reframed thus : "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was maintainable even though the assessee had not raised objection to the draft assessment order under section 144B ?" The draft unsigned assessment order dated January 30, 1979, for the assessment year 1976-77, was served on the assessee on March 31, 1979, as required under section 144B of the Income-tax Ac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is liability to be assessed under this Act or any order of assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or section 144, where the assessee objects to the amount of income assessed, or to the amount of tax determined, or to the amount of loss computed, or to the status under which he is assessed ; . . . . " The order passed by the Income-tax Officer was under section 143(3) though after following the mandatory procedure laid down in section 144B. Only because the procedure under section 144B was followed, the order does not cease to be one under section 143(3). After inserting section 144B, section 246(1)(a) was not amended. This clearly establishes that the right of appeal was not intended to be taken away in situations like this. Afte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ns to the income. The law required forwarding of the draft of the proposed order of assessment by the Income-tax Officer. This communication, no doubt, required authenticity. The signature of the Income-tax Officer on the forwarding letter provided that authenticity. By virtue of the mere fact that the draft order was not signed, it cannot be said that the condition precedent was not fulfilled and the entire proceedings were rendered invalid. The defect, if any, must be held to be only technical keeping in view the object behind section 144B. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Mrs. Meeraben P. Desai v. Union of India [1981] 130 ITR 922 has also held that such defects are not fatal to the proceedings. Hence we record the answers to the qu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X