VIJAY CORPORATION, MUMBAI V. ITO 12(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1511/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 151119914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 16-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHANTAM BOSE
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK J PATIL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH F, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN(J.M) & SHRI R.K.PANDA (A .M) ITA NO.1511/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2005-06) M/S. VIJAY CORPORATION, 143 A-WING, MITTAL COURT, 224, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021. PAN: AACFV 6757B (APPELLANT) VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(2)(1) MUMBAI. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHOK J. PATIL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHANTAM BOSE DATE OF HEARING : 16/01/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 /01/2012 ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, J.M: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORD ER DATED 16/12/2009 OF CIT(A)-23, MUMBAI RELATING TO A.Y 2005-06. GROU ND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS FOLLOWS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE CIT (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX) (A) ERRED IN HOLDING T HAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) DATED 10.12.2007 WAS A VAL ID ORDER INSPITE OF THE SAME HAD NOT BEEN SIGNED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN TH E BUSINESS OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES, FINANCE, COMMISSION ETC. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN ON INCOME FOR A.Y 2005-06 ON 30/10/2005. AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 10/12/2007 WAS PASSED BY THE AO. IN THE SAID ORDER THE AO DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AS FOLLOWS: ITA NO.1511/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2005-06) 2 THE ASSESSEE FIELD APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) CHALLENGING AFORESAID ADDITIONS. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE RAISED A GROUND THAT TH E ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS NOT VALID IN LAW FOR THE REASON THAT THE AO DID NOT SIGN THE SAME. ON THIS OBJECTION THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FRO M THE AO. IN THE REMAND REPORT THE AO HAS STATED AS FOLLOWS: IN THIS CASE, TH ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE I. T. ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 10.12.2007. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, INCOME-TAX COMPUTATION FORM (ITNS 150), DEMAND NOTI CE U/S. 156 OF THE IT. ACT AND PENALTY NOTICE U/S.271(1 )(C) OF TH E I.T. ACT WERE DISPATCHED TO THE ASSESSEE VIZ. M/S. VIJAY CORPORA TION ON 18/12/2007 BY SPEED POST BUT WAS RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHOR ITIES ON 27.12.2007 WITH THE REMARK LEFT / CLOSED. AS SU CH, THE SAME WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BY HAND ON 27.12.2007. THE A CKNOWLEDGEMENT IS ON RECORD. ALSO, AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE/ REPRESENTATIVE HAS ATTENDED THE HEARING A ND DISCUSSED THE CASE, WHICH IS EVIDENCED FROM RECORDING AND SIGNAT URE OF THE ASSESSEE / REPRESENTATIVE ON THE NOTE SHEET. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEES ONLY CONTENTION IS TH AT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT SIGNED. BUT THE NOTICE OF DEMAND, COM PUTATION FORMS ETC. ATTACHED ALONG WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS SIGNED AND CARRIES PROPER STAMP AND SEAL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED WITHIN THE TIME BARRING DA TE OF 31.12.2007 ITSELF. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WOULD HAVE REMAINED TO BE SIGN ED INADVERTENTLY . IN THIS MATTER, KIND ATTENTION INVITED TO THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KALYANKUMAR RAY VS. COMINISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 191 ITR 634, WHEREIN THE HON BLE SUP REME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE STATUTE DOES NOT, IN TERMS, REQUIRE THE SERVICE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR THE OTHER FORM ON THE ASSESSEE AND CONTEMPLATES ITA NO.1511/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2005-06) 3 ONLY THE SERVICE OF A NOTICE OF DEMAND IT HAS ALSO BEEN HELD THAT I.T.N.S. 150 IS ALSO A FORM FOR DETERMINATION OF TA X PAYABLE AND WHEN IT IS SIGNED OR INITIALED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, IT IS CERTAINLY AN ORDER IN WRITING BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, DETERMINING THE TAX PAYABLE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 143(3). IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONTENDED THAT THE ITNS- 150 DESPATCHED ALONG WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT SIGNED. THE SAID COPY HAS BEEN SIGNED BY THE A.O. AND CAN HENC E BE TREATED AS VALID ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y2005-06, CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO EXT RACTED ABOVE THAT THE AO DOES NOT DISPUTE THE FACT THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSM ENT WAS NOT SIGNED. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING A S FOLLOWS: 2.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. AS M ENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REPORT, THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT IN KALYANKUMAR RAY VS. CIT HAS HELD THAT THE STATUTE D OES NOT REQUIRE THE SERVICE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND CONTEMPLATE S ONLY THE SERVICE OF A NOTICE OF DEMAND. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE NOTICE OF DEMAND OR FOR THAT MATTER COMPUTATION IN ITNS 150 WAS NOT SIG NED OR SERVED ON THE APPELLANT. ASSESSMENT IS ONE INTEGRATED PROCE SS INVOKING NOT ONLY THE ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL INCOME BUT ALSO THE DETERMI NATION OF TAX. THE NET SUM PAYABLE AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE THE TAX HAS BEEN DETERMINED AND DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED AND SERVED IF T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER REMAINED TO BE UNSIGNED IT IS MERELY A PROCED URAL IRREGULARITY CURABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B. IT IS THE SERVICE OF DEMAND NOTICE WHICH IS CRUCIAL; SUCH FAILURE WOULD INVALIDATE PROCEEDINGS AS HELD IN MOHAN WAHI & ORS VS. CIT 248 ITR 799. CONVERSELY WHERE THERE IS PROPER SERVICE OF DEMAND NOTICE, AS IN THE CASE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE HELD INVALID. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B ENSURE THAT ON TECHNICAL GROUND THE PROCEEDINGS IS NOT RENDERED INVALID. AS IS EVIDENCE D FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICERS REPORT DATED 26/08/2009, THE ASSESSMENT H AS BEEN IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH AND ACCORDI NG TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSES OF THE I.T. ACT. AT THE TIME OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE REPRESENTATIVE HAS ATTENDED THE HEARIN G AND DISCUSSED ITA NO.1511/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2005-06) 4 THE CASE, WHICH IS EVIDENCED FROM RECORDING AND SIG NATURE OF THE ASSESSEE/REPRESENTATIVE ON THE NOTE SHEET. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEES ONLY CONTENTION IS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT SIGNED. BUT THE NOTICE OF DEMAND, COMPUTATION FORM ETC ATTACHED ALO NGWITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SIGNED AND CARRIED PROPER STAMP AN D SEAL OF THE AO. THIS MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLE TED WITHIN THE TIME BARRING DATE OF 31.12.2007 ITSELF. SINCE THE ORDER SENT BY SPEED POST WAS RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES THE SA ME WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BY HAND ON 27.12.2007. THE ACKNOWLEDGE MENT IS ON RECORD. AS SUCH OMISSION IN SIGNING THE ORDER CANN OT INVALIDATE THE ORDER AND THE IRREGULARITIES ARE CURABLE IN TERMS O F THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B OF THE ACT. IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT THE APPELLANT FILED APP EAL BASED ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 16/01/2008 WITHIN THE TIME ALLO WED FOR FILING APPEAL WITHOUT RAISING ANY OBJECTION REGARDING THE ORDER, INDICATING HIS ACQUIESCENCE TO THE SAID ORDER. IT IS ONLY AT A MUCH LATER DATE VIZ. 25/02/2009 THAT THE APPELLANT AS AN AFTER THOUGHT R AISED THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND. NEVERTHELESS, AS HELD ABOVE, THE DEFECT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS CURABLE U/S. 292B OF THE I.T. A CT. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS THEREFORE WITHOUT MERIT. 3. BEFORE US LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE SAME SMT. KILASHO DEVI BURMAN & OTHERS VS. CIT,219 ITR 214 (SC). THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WERE THAT AN ASSESSMENT WAS SAID TO HAVE BEEN MADE ON A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1955-56. T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE RECORD OF THE REVENUE BORE NO SIGNATURE. ACCORD ING TO THE ASSESSEE, NEITHER THE STATUTORY NOTICES, NOR THE DEMAND NOTIC E, NOR THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD BEEN RECEIVED. ON THE RECORD THERE WAS AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT SLIP BEARING THE DATE APRIL 25, 1958, SIGNED BY P. ACCOR DING TO THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NO SUCH PERSON WHO HAD ANY AUTHORITY TO R ECEIVE ANY NOTICE ON HIS BEHALF. THERE WAS NO MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE DEMA ND RAISED IN THE DEMAND NOTICE HAD BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FILED A PARTITION SUIT. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1956-57 TO 1961-62, NO NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY. THE INCOME FROM THE PROPERT IES WHICH WERE COVERED ITA NO.1511/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2005-06) 5 BY THE PARTITION SUIT WAS RETURNED BY, AND ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ERSTWHILE MEMBERS OF THE HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY. TH E INCOME-TAX OFFICER THEREAFTER TOOK PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147(A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, AND CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE'S HINDU UNDIV IDED FAMILY HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE TRIBUNAL WENT INTO THE QUES TION AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS AN ASSESSMENT ON THE HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMI LY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1955-56. ITS CONCLUSIONS WERE: (I) THAT THERE WAS NO SIGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER; (II) THAT EVEN IF A DEMAND NOTICE WAS TAKEN TO EXIST IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS INVALID AS, IN SPITE OF THERE BEING A POSITIVE DEMAND THEREUNDER, IT HAD NOT BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE; (III) THAT IF THERE WAS NO ASSESSMENT ON THE HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY (FOR 1955- 56), THERE WAS NO NEED ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO COME FORWARD WITH AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 25A OF THE INDIAN INCOME-TAX ACT, 1922, AS THAT SECTION CONTEMPLATED AN APPLICATION BEING MADE THEREUNDER O NLY WHEN THERE WAS ALREADY AN ASSESSMENT ON THE HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY . THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT IN THE STATUS OF A HINDU UNDIVI DED FAMILY WHEN THE FAMILY HAD CEASED TO EXIST HAD TO BE SET ASIDE AS I T WAS NOT VALID. ON A REFERENCE, THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL WERE PERVERSE AS THE RECORDS SHOWED THAT P HAD RECEIVED A NUMBER OF NOTICES ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS DATES. IT HELD TH AT THERE WAS A VALID ASSESSMENT ON THE HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY FOR 1955-5 6. ON APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE HIGH COURT HAD NOT GIVE N DUE IMPORTANCE TO THE FACT THAT UPON THE RECORD PRODUCED BY THE REVEN UE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THERE WAS NO SIGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER NOR A SIGNED A SSESSMENT FORM. A VALID ASSESSMENT UPON THE HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1955- 56 WAS CENTRAL TO THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. SINCE IT WAS UNABLE TO ESTABLISH, BY THE PRODUCTION OF A SIGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THAT YEAR, THAT THERE WAS SUCH A VALID ASSESSMENT, ITS CASE FELL AND THE TRIB UNAL WAS RIGHT IN ITS CONCLUSIONS. THE HIGH COURT WAS IN ERROR IN CONCLUD ING THAT THE FINDINGS OF ITA NO.1511/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2005-06) 6 THE TRIBUNAL ON THE RECORDS WERE PERVERSE. THE JUDG MENT AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WERE VALID. THERE WAS NO VALID ASSESSMENT ON THE HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1955-56. 4. THE LD. D.R HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF SMT. KILASHO DEVI BURMAN & OTHERS(SUPRA) WAS AS TO WHETH ER THERE WAS PROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE AND THE DECISION HAS TO BE READ IN THAT CONTEXT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON TH E DECISION OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CWT VS. DHANSUKHLAL J. GA JAB, 237 ITR 534 (GUJ), WHEREIN ASSESSMENT WAS HELD TO BE INVALID ON THE GR OUND THAT THE AO NOT BEING SIGNED IT. THE LD. D.R SUBMITTED THAT, THAT WAS A CASE WHERE NEITHER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOR THE COMPUTATION SHEET WERE SIGNED BY THE AO, WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE COMPUTATION SHEET WAS A DMITTEDLY SIGNED BY THE AO. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ADMIT TEDLY THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WAS NOT SIGNED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE S UPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KALYANKUMAR RAY (SUPRA) IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ABSENCE OF A SIGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS NOT FATAL. WE FIND T HAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. KILASHO DEVI BURMAN & OTH ERS (SUPRA) HAD CONSIDERED ITS DECISION IN THE CASE OF KALYANKUMAR RAY (SUPRA) AND HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: THE HIGH COURT BASED ITSELF UPON THE DEMAND NOTICE AND THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT SLIP SIGNED BY PHOOL SINGH AND OBSER VED, 'UNLESS AN ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED UNDER OR IN PURSUANCE O F THE ACT QUESTION OF A NOTICE OF DEMAND IN THE PRESCRIBED F ORM SPECIFYING THE SUM PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ARISE'. THE HIGH COURT DID NOT GIVE DUE IMPORTANCE TO THE FACT THAT UPON THE R ECORD PRODUCED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THERE W AS NO SIGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER NOR A SIGNED ASSESSMENT FORM. ITA NO.1511/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2005-06) 7 THAT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS TO BE SIGNED IS ESTABL ISHED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN KALYANKUMAR RAY V. CIT [1 991] 191 ITR 634. IT SAID (PAGE 638) : 'IF, THEREFORE, THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER FIRST DRAWS UP AN ORDER ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME AND INDICATING THE ADJUS TMENTS TO BE MADE, DIRECTS THE OFFICE TO COMPUTE THE TAX PAYABL E ON THAT BASIS AND THEN APPROVES OF IT, EITHER IMMEDIATELY OR SOME TIME LATER, NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE PROCESS, THO UGH IT IS ONLY WHEN BOTH THE COMPUTATION SHEETS ARE SIGNED OR INI TIALLED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER THAT THE PROCESS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 143(3) WILL BE COMPLETE. . . . ALL THESE DECISIONS EMPHASISE THAT ALL THAT IS NEEDED IS THAT THERE MUST BE SOME WRITI NG INITIALLED OR SIGNED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER BEFORE THE PERI OD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED FOR COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSM ENT HAS EXPIRED IN WHICH THE TAX PAYABLE IS DETERMINED AND NOT THAT THE FORM USUALLY STYLED AS THE 'ASSESSMENT ORDER' SHOU LD ITSELF CONTAIN THE COMPUTATION OF TAX AS WELL.' A VALID ASSESSMENT UPON THE HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1955-56 WAS CENTRAL TO THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. SINCE IT WAS UNABLE TO ESTABLISH, BY THE PRODUCTION OF A SIGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THAT YEAR, THAT THERE WAS SUCH A VALID ASSESSMENT, ITS CASE FELL AND THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIG HT IN SO HOLDING. THE HIGH COURT WAS IN ERROR IN CONCLUDING THAT THE FIND INGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE RECORD WERE PERVERSE. 6. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT.KI LASHO DEVI BURMAN (SUPRA) DID NOT GIVE ANY IMPORTANCE TO THE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF DEMAND DULY SIGNED BUT EMPHASIZED THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW TH AT AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT HAD TO BE SIGNED FOR ITS VALIDITY. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE IN THE PRESENT CASE PROCEEDED ON THE FOOTING THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW IS COMPLIED WITH WHEN A SIGNED NOTICE OF DEMAND EXISTS OR IS SERVED ON AN ASSESSEE. IN OUR VIEW THE QUESTION IN THE CASE BEF ORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KALYANKUMAR RAY (SUPRA) WAS TH E ABSENCE OF A TAX CALCULATION IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DULY SIGNED EXISTED. THE PRESENT CASE IS A CASE WHERE THERE WA S NO SIGNED ORDER OF ITA NO.1511/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2005-06) 8 ASSESSMENT. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DECISION I N THE CASE OF SMT.KILASHO DEVI BURMAN (SUPRA) SQUARELY COVERS THE ISSUE IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF A SIGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, WE HAV E TO HOLD THAT ASSESSMENT IS INVALID. WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.292B CANNOT COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE REVENUE. THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.292B READS AS FOLLOWS: 292B. RETURN OF INCOME, ETC., NOT TO BE INVALID ON CERTAIN GROUNDS.-- NO RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDING FURNISHED OR MADE OR ISSUED OR TAKEN OR PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN FURNISHED OR MADE OR ISSUED OR TAKEN IN PURSUA NCE OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL BE INVALID OR SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE INVALID MERELY BY REASON OF ANY MISTAKE, DEFECT OR OMISSION IN SUCH RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEE DING IF SUCH RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OT HER PROCEEDING IS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCOR DING TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS ACT. PROVISIONS OF SEC.143(3) OF THE ACT CONTEMPLATES TH AT THE AO SHALL PASS AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IN WRITING. THE REQUIREMENT OF SIGNATURE OF THE AO IS THEREFORE A LEGAL REQUIREMENT. THE OMISSION TO SIG N THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENET CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY RELYING ON THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.292B OF THE ACT. TAX COMPUTATION IS A MINISTERIAL ACT AS OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KALYANKUMAR RAY (SUPRA) AND CAN BE D ONE BY THE OFFICE OF THE AO IF THERE ARE INDICATIONS GIVEN IN THE ORDER OF A SSESSMENT. BUT THE NOTICE OF DEMAND SIGNED BY THE OFFICE OF THE AO WITHOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A DULY SIGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT BY THE AO, IN OUR VIEW C ANNOT BE SAID TO BE A OMISSION WHICH WAS SOUGHT TO BE COVERED BY THE PROV ISIONS OF SEC.292B OF THE ACT. IF SUCH A COURSE IS PERMITTED TO BE FOLLO WED THAN THAT WOULD AMOUNT TO DELEGATION OF POWERS CONFERRED ON THE AO BY THE ACT. DELEGATION OF POWERS OF THE AO U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT IS NOT THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ACT. AN UNSIGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE I N SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE INTENT AND PURP OSE OF THE ACT. ITA NO.1511/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2005-06) 9 7. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS INVALID. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED ON THIS GROUND. THE OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THEREFORE NOT TAKEN UP FOR CONSIDERATI ON. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 20 TH DAY OF JAN. 2012. SD/- SD/- (R.K.PANDA ) (N.V.VASUDEVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED. 20 TH JAN.2012 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CITY CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 5. THE D.RF BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, I TAT, MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI. VM. ITA NO.1511/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2005-06) 10 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 16/1/2012 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 17/1/2012 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER