High Court Of Karnataka
CIT vs. Manjit Singh Sachdev
Sections 37(1), Expln., 140, Rule 13
Asst. Year 1985-86
P. Vishwanatha Shetty & N. Kumar, JJ.
ITRC No. 6 of 1999
21st March, 2006
Counsel Appeared
M.V. Seshachala, for the Applicant : S. Parthasarathy, for the Respondent
ORDER
N. Kumar, J. :
At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, has referred the following questions of law for our opinion under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 :
“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the expenditure being the cost of goods given to the depositors at the time of accepting deposits received under DLIP Scheme, being deferred revenue expenditure (claimed by the assessee also as such) as revenue expenditure relating to the previous year assessable for the asst. yr. 1985-86 ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the Form No. 6 signed by a person other than the person entitled to sign as required under s. 140 of the IT Act as valid ?”
2. Insofar as the first question is concerned, in an almost identical situation, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Amarjeet Kaur (ITRC No. 48 of 1999 disposed of on 31st Jan., 2006 [reported at (2006) 201 CTR (Kar) 134—Ed.] has reframed the said question as under : “Whether the business carried on by the assessee is prohibited by law and thereby the expenditure incurred by the assessee is deemed not to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession and no deduction or allowance shall be made in respect of such expenditure ?”
3. The said question was answered in the negative i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that the first question involved in this reference is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court which fact, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent is unable to dispute. In view of the reasons assigned in the aforesaid judgment, the first question raised for our opinion is answered in the negative i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
5. Insofar as the second question is concerned, the short question for our consideration is whether the Form No. 6 signed by the accountant of the respondent is valid or not ?
6. Form No. 6 is an application filed for extension of the date of furnishing the return of income under s. 139 of the IT Act, 1961. Sec. 139 of the Act deals with the return of income. It provides that every person if his total income or the total income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, shall furnish a return of his income in a prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth other particulars as may be prescribed. Sec. 140 of the Act specifies as to who has to sign the returns. It provides that the returns under s. 139 shall be signed and verified in the case of an individual by the individual himself, in the case of an HUF, by the Karta, in the case of a company, by the managing director thereof, in the case of a firm, the managing partner thereof, in the case of a local authority, by the principal officer and in the case of any other association, any member of the association and in the absence of such persons, for the reasons set out in the section by a person who is mentioned therein or by some person duly authorised by him in this behalf. Rule 13 of the IT Rules, 1962 provides for application for extension of time for filing of return of income. It provides that the application to the ITO under the proviso to sub-s. (1) or the proviso to sub-s. (2) or sub-s. (3) of s. 139 for seeking an extension of the date for furnishing the return of income shall be in Form No. 6. From the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that an application for extension of time can be filed by the person who is under a legal obligation to file his return or by any person duly authorised in that behalf by such persons. If the person who seeks extension is not the assessee, the person who makes the application for extension should produce due authorisation. Therefore, the contention that assessee alone should seek for extension is contrary to the aforesaid statutory provision and does not merit acceptance. In our view, anyone who is authorised by the assessee can seek for extension by filing Form No. 6. It was brought to our notice that in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Amarjeet Kaur (ITRC No. 48 of 1999 disposed of on 31st Jan., 2006) (supra), it was held that even if the person who sought extension, was not duly authorised on the date the application was made, if in the course of the proceedings, a letter of authority authorising such person is filed, it would amount to ratification of the authorisation on the basis of which he sought for extension, is permissible [sic–No such point was involved in the case of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur—Ed.]. In other words, it means, even if there is initial defect of want of due authorisation on the date of making the application in Form No. 6, the said defect could be cured by giving a due authorisation in the course of the proceedings. In that view of the matter, the second question referred for our opinion is answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
7. However, it is made clear that in the instant case, the accountant who has signed Form No. 6 was the duly Authorised Representative of the respondent. Even otherwise, if there is no such authorisation he shall file such an authorisation within four weeks. If such an authorisation is filed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the authority shall act on such authorisation and treat the application filed in Form No. 6 as a valid one and made by a person who is duly authorised in that behalf.
Accordingly, the reference is disposed of.
[Citation : 285 ITR 359]
