1983 (10) TMI 47

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ?" The facts, briefly stated, are these: R. Giridhar, the assessee, was a partner in several firms. For the year 1974-75, the ITO while making the assessment, computed the income and indicated the advance tax paid and also the T.D.S. He did not determine the sum payable, but such computation was made on a separate sheet of paper accompanying the assessment of the total income. The assessment order was undisputedly signed by the ITO, but the said separate sheet of paper did not contain his signature. The assessment order was made on March 30, 1976. Challenging the validity of the assessment order, the assessee appealed to the AAC. One of the grounds of attack in the appeal was that the assessment order was invalid since the tax pay .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... therefore, the assessment is invalid and has to be annulled. " From the narration of the facts, what cannot be disputed is that the ITO made an assessment of the total income of the assessee. He had also indicated in the order the tax deducted at source and the advance tax paid. He, however, did not determine the sum payable on the basis of the said computation immediately above his signature ; but that has been determined in a separate sheet which does not contain his signature. The question is whether the assessment order could be said to have been made in accordance with the provisions of s. 143 of the T.T. Act. The relevant portion of s. 143 reads : " ... the Income-tax Officer shall, by an order in writing, make an assessment of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ble by the assessee in the assessment order is mandatory and it is also a well-accepted principle that non-compliance with the mandatory provisions would vitiate the assessment order. In the instant case, however, there is no such non-observance of the mandatory provision. The Tribunal has invalidated the assessment order solely on the ground that the computation of the sum payable by the assessee is found in a separate sheet of paper which has not been signed by the ITO. It is not the case of the parties that the sum payable was worked out in separate sheet of paper by a person other than the ITO. That separate sheet, although does not bear the signature of the ITO, none the less forms part of the assessment order. It was on the basis of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X