9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing question has been referred to this court for opinion: "Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in directing the Incometax Officer to entertain the application in Form No. 6, when such an application was not signed by a person who was authorised to sign it ?" The assessee, Bhilai Mahila Samaj, Bhilai, is a charitable trust and is being assessed to tax in the status of an association of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Act, 1961. The assessee tried to explain that, at the material time, the person authorised was out of station and, therefore, the application was signed by counsel for the assessee. The Income-tax Officer treated that application in Form No. 6 as invalid and, therefore, took no cognizance of that application. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the assessee's appeal and held that the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r filing such return. A provision has, however, been made in that section itself for extension of time for filing a return. Section 140 requires that the return shall be signed and verified by the person in the manner laid down. The application for extension of time for furnishing a return under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is to be made in Form No. 6 which is prescribed under rule 13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned by the person authorised to sign and verify the return and rule 13 of the Rules only says that the application has to be in the prescribed form. It is only in the notes appended to that form that one finds that the application in that form has to be signed by the person entitled to sign the return of income. This scheme by itself makes it manifest that the mere irregularity in signing the appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
