Find a Lawyer

I.T.A. No. 507/IB of 1985-86, decided on 3rd August, 1987.

---Ss. 2(41) & 55--Filing of Return by assessee--Return has to be verified in the prescribed manner--Assessee is required to affix his signatures on the Return--Omission to affix signatures on Return by assessee is certainly fatal rendering Return invalid.

---Ss. 2(41), 55, 59 & 62--Return filed by assessee in time found be invalid on ground of assessee's omission to sign same--Return: filed by assessee after the last prescribed date would not make eligible for being treated as a return under the Self-Assessment Scheme--Assessment relating to relevant charge year therefore was correctly finalised under S.62 of the Ordinance.

Javed Ahmed Qureshi for Appellant.

Maqbool Hussain Shah D.R. for Respondent.

Date of hearing; 3rd August, 1987.

Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee, who is an individual filed a return on 10-10-1985 to declare r, income of Rs.18,500. This return was treated as invalid because t assessee somehow had not put his signatures on it. He was inform about it vide letter No.0378633 dated 19-11-1985. after the last date for filing of return by 15-11-1985. had expired. The assessee w simultaneously, served with a notice under section 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter called the Ordinance requesting him to file a return of his income for the charge year 1985-86. In consequence thereof he filed a return on 24-11-1985 to disclose net profit of Rs.18,500 as per computation chart. The Income Tax Officer, on his part, estimated turnover of the assessee at Rs.2.00,000 which was subjected to gross profit rate of 15% so as to compute gross income of Rs.30,000 After allowing a sum of Rs.5 000 on account of reasonable Profit and Loss expenses, net income of the assessee was estimated at Rs.25,000 Income as assessed heretobefore was contested in appeal before learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner who l)v virtue of Appeal No.491 dated 20-4-1986, confirmed assessment relating to the charge year 1985-86. In this view of the matter the assessee filed a second appeal before the Tribunal which after hearing has been disposed of today.

2. First objection of learned counsel of the assessee relates the fact that there was no justification with learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner to have confirmed assessment under section 62 of the Ordinance as return of the assessee qualified for acceptance under the sale assessment scheme. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on Section 55 of the Ordinance which according learned Authorised Representative of the assessee does not stipulate verification of return in the prescribed manner. Arguing further he has stated that under the Repealed Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the Act), a return was, required to be filed in such form and verified in such manner as may be prescribed. He has, therefore, stated that while under the repealed Act there was a qualification for verification of return in the prescribed manner there is no such condition attached to it under Section 55 of the Ordinance. Hence on account of the foregoing reason, he has stated that, return of the assessee even without signatures on it was not invalid as was held by learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner vide Appeal No. 491 dated 20-4-1986. This line of reasoning has been strongly contested by learned Departmental Representative on behalf of the department who has submitted that return of total income according to clause (41) of Section 2 of the Ordinance does contain a qualification for its verification in the prescribed manner. He has stated that since return of the assessee was not verified in the prescribed manner, it was invalid because of absence of assessee's signatures on it. Therefore, he has argued that, return of the assessee filed on 10-10-1985 was rightly treated to be invalid by learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Arguing further he has pointed out that since a valid return was filed after the last date for its filing, the question of treating the return filed on 24-11-1985 under the Self-Assessment Scheme did not arise.

3. Having given my due consideration to arguments of both the parties there is no manner of doubt left with me that, a return even under the Ordinance has to be verified in the prescribed form. In support of this conclusion I have with advantage relied on the definition of return of total income as is given in clause (41) of Section 2 of the Ordinance which is set out below for facility of reference:-

"Return of total income" means the return of total income in the prescribed form, setting forth such particulars and accompanied by such statement, certificates and other documents, and verified in such manner, as may be prescribed;"

4. The above conclusion also finds support from the- return itself, which spells out its verification. In this connection verification of the return as given on pages 602-603 of the Ordinance published by Tax Publications (Private Ltd.), is given below:-

I, the undersigned, solemnly declare that to the best of my knowledge and belief-

(a) the information given in the above statement is correct and complete; and

(b) the amount of investments and other particulars are truly stated.

Signature ------------

Dated---------- Name in Block Letters ------

(2) The return of total income required to be furnished under, section 55 shall, in the case of persons deriving income under the Heads specified in Section 15, shall be in the following form and shall be verified in the manner and accompanied by the statements and certificates indicated therein: -

(i) Please fill in all relevant columns carefully as any omission or incorrect entry can adversely affect the final assessment.

(ii) In case the total income of the assessee is more than Rs.50,000, Wealth statement under Section 58 must be filed on the prescribed form."

5. On a careful analysis of the definition of return of total income and form of verification as set out above, it is my considered opinion that the assessee was required to affix his signatures on the return. Its omission was certainly fatal as is evident from the fate of assessment. Therefore, the return filed on 10-10-1985 was rightly held to be invalid. A necessary corollary of this finding is that, return filed by the asses tee on 19-11-1985, after the last date which expired on 15-10-1985, did not make it eligible for being treated as a return under the Self-Assessment Scheme. In this view of the matter assessment relating to the charge year 1985-86, was correctly finalized under Section 62 of the Ordinance.

6. The Income Tax Officer estimated turnover of the assessee at Rs.2,00,000 as against Rs.1,50,090 shown by him. In view of capital employed in the business estimate of turnover was not by any stretch of imagination either excessive or unreasonable. Therefore, it is upheld, Similarly gross profit rate of 15% in the case of a hardware dealer being reasonable is confirmed.

7. In consequence of the above order appeal of the assessee, which is devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.

M.B.A./413/T Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.