Section 140: Authorised Signatory signing the Return under Income Tax Act, 1961

Income tax return must be signed by the authorized person. According to S. 140 of the Income Tax Act,1961 the Return form must be signed & verified by the authorized person according to the following chart:

Related Cases:

S. 140 of IT Act, 1961—Return—If the irregularity in the original return is curable, then the doctrine of relation back would apply, but if there is a fundamental defect in the original return, which could not be cured, then such a doctrine cannot be applied. The provisions of S. 140 of the Act, mandate the managing director or some other responsible officers to sign. The company secretary has signed the return who otherwise under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, is competent to sign the same, therefore, doctrine of relation back would apply. CIT Vs. Haryana Sheet Glass Ltd. [2009] 318 ITR 173 (Delhi)

S. 139(9), 140 & 292B of IT Act, 1961—Return—As per S. 292B, a return of income shall not be treated as invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such return of income. If the return of income is not signed by signatory as contemplated by S. 140 would be a mistake, defect or omission and such defect can be cured by virtue of S. 139(9) r/w S. 292B of the Act. Once the defect is removed, it will relate to original date of filing the return and once the return is valid and in conformity with the intended purpose of the Act, such cured return of income cannot be ignored—Prime Securities Ltd. Vs. Varinder Mehta, ACIT (2009) 226 CTR 247 (Bom)

S. 139(9), 140 & 292B of the IT Act, 1961—Return—S. 140 inter alia mandates that a return submitted by an assessee is required to be signed and verified by him and in the absence of both requirement, the return is invalid, defective and curable in spite of the deeming effect of S. 292B, therefore no assessment can be made on such invalid and defective return. CIT Vs. Harjinder Kaur (2009) 222 CTR 254 (P&H)

S. 292B, r/w S. 139 and 140 of the IT Act, 1961—Return of income etc., not to be in valid in certain cases—As per S. 140, the return has to be signed in the case of a company by the managing director and where managing director is not available, it cannot be said that the signing of the return by the company secretary is merely an irregularity. As per sub-section (9) of S. 139, the duty is cast on the Assessing Officer that he considers such return of income to be defective and intimate the assessee to remove the defect within a period of 15 days. If the defect in return of income is cured within stipulated period by virtue of S. 139(9), then the return becomes a valid return. According to S. 292B such return of income shall not be treated as invalid return merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such return of income such return of income is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent any purpose of the Act. Prime Securities Ltd. Vs. Varinder Mehta, ACIT.

S. 234A, r/w S. 234B and 140 of the IT Act, 1961—Interest—S. 234A is in relation to liability to pay interest for default in late furnishing of return or non-furnishing of return, while S. 234B pertains to liability to pay interest for default in payment of advance tax. However in both the provisions, interest is payable on the amount which is the difference between the amount of tax payable on the total income as determined u/s 143(1) or on regular assessment as reduced by the advance tax paid, deducted at source or collected at source. Roshanlal S. Jain (AOP) Vs. DCIT

S. 139, 140 of IT Act, 1961—Assessment—Since the return is neither signed nor verified by the legal heirs of the deceased assessee, therefore, no valid assessment can be made on the basis of an invalid and void return. The return filed with the signatures of the assessee after his death is not a valid return. CIT Vs. Moti Ram (Deceased)(2009) 316 ITR 321 (P&H)

S. 140, 154, 239, 240, 292B of  IT Act, 1961—Return—A return of income filed  by a company which is signed and verified by a person than the one authorized under the Act, the return in such circumstances shall be treated to be defective which shall be amenable to the provisions of S. 292B and 139(9) of the Act. The assessing authority in such circumstances shall provide an opportunity u/s 139(9) before treating the same to be invalid and none. However, a different situation would arise where a return is not signed and verified at all. The question of removal of defect in such a situation does not arise as the defect goes to the very root and jurisdiction of the validity of the return. Hind Samachar Limited Vs. Union of India (2011) 330 ITR 266 (P&H)

S.140A(3), 156 & 220(2) of IT Act, 1961—Interest—When all tax liabilities, except advance tax, have been made liable to be followed by a notice u/s 156 and only when the assessee fails to comply with the conditions of the notice u/s 156 and fails to pay the due amount, then he is liable to pay interest. CIT Vs. Late Misrilal Jain through Executor Gyanchand Jain [2012] 254 CTR 554 (Jharkhand)

S. 40A(2), 140 of IT Act, 1961—Accounting—No law has been laid down that if stock register is not maintained, the only consequence would be rejection of the books of account. Therefore, rejection of the books of account on the ground of not maintaining the stock register is not justified. CIT Vs. Superior Crafts [2013] 353 ITR 101 (DEL)

S.140, 143(3) & 144C of IT Act, 1961, r.4 of IT (Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009—Appeal—There is no prescription that the objection should be filed by the assessee in person. Under rule 4 of the IT (DRP) Rules, 2009, objection, if any, may be filed in person or through his agent within specified period in Form 35A. An agent is permitted to file the objection, but in the case of company whether the agent is to be a managing director, director, chartered accountant or any other person has not been prescribed under the 2009 rules but rule 3(a) of rule 2009 says that draft order copies can be duly authenticated by the eligible assessee or his authorized representative. Nomura Services India P. Ltd. Vs. ITO [2012] 20 ITR (Trib) 745 (ITAT-Mum)

S. 140A, r/w S. 156 of IT Act, 1961—Assessment—All tax liability, except advace tax, have been made liable to be followed by a notice u/s 156 and only when the assessee fails to comply with the conditions of the notice u/s 156 and fails to pay on the due amount, then he is liable to pay interest. Therefore, assessee who himself submitted revised returns of self-assessment of his income u/s 140A, is liable to pay interest from the date of finally determination of his tax liability and not from the date of filing revised return. CIT vs. Misrilal Jain.

S. 140A of the Income-tax Act, 1961—Assessment—Ramachandra Pesticides (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2006] 204 CTR 133 (KAR)

Reference:

As Per 140, of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

Return by whom to be signed

The return u/s 115WD or 139 shall be signed and verified—

(a)  In the case of an individual,—

(i)  By the individual himself;

(ii)  Where he is absent from India, by the individual himself or by some person duly authorised by him in this behalf;

(iii)  Where he is mentally incapacitated from attending to his affairs, by his guardian or any other person competent to act on his behalf; and

(iv) Where, for any other reason, it is not possible for the individual to sign the return, by any person duly authorized by him in this behalf:

Provided that in a case referred to in sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iv), the person signing the return holds a valid power of attorney from the individual to do so, which shall be attached to the return;

(b)  in the case of a Hindu undivided family, by the karta, and, where the karta is absent from India or is mentally incapacitated from attending to his affairs, by any other adult member of such family;

(c)  in the case of a company, by the managing director thereof, or where for any unavoidable reason such managing director is not able to sign and verify the return, or where there is no managing director, by any director thereof :

Provided that where the company is not resident in India, the return may be signed and verified by a person who holds a valid power of attorney from such company to do so, which shall be attached to the return :

Provided further that,—

(a)  Where the company is being wound up, whether under the orders of a court or otherwise, or where any person has been appointed as the receiver of any assets of the company, the return shall be signed and verified by the liquidator referred to in sub-section (1) of section 178;

(b) Where the management of the company has been taken over by the Central Government or any State Government under any law, the return of the company shall be signed and verified by the principal officer thereof;

(cc)  In the case of a firm, by the managing partner thereof, or where for any unavoidable reason such managing partner is not able to sign and verify the return, or where there is no managing partner as such, by any partner thereof, not being a minor;

(cd) In the case of a limited liability partnership, by the designated partner thereof, or where for any unavoidable reason such designated partner is not able to sign and verify the return, or where there is no designated partner as such, by any partner thereof;

(d)  In the case of a local authority, by the principal officer thereof;

(dd) In the case of a political party referred to in sub-section (4B) of section 139, by the chief executive officer of such party (whether such chief executive officer is known as secretary or by any other designation);

(e)  In the case of any other association, by any member of the association or the principal officer thereof; and

(f)  In the case of any other person, by that person or by some person competent to act on his behalf.