1989 PLP (Trib (PTD)

25% Gross profit. Rs. 75,000 Less Expenses Rs. 28,000 Net profit. Rs. 47,000 It so happened that the father and son signed the returns of each other i.e. the return of M/s, Fino Bricks Company owned by Mr. Zafar Ullah Bhatti was signed by Mr. Inayat Ullah Bhatti and similarly the return of M/s. Bhatti Bricks Company owned by Mr. Inayat Ullah Bhatti, was signed by son M/s. Zafar Ullah Bhatti. This mistake was discovered by the I.T.O and he treated both the returns as invalid. Consequently, a notice under section 56 was issued to the assessee in reply to which both the assessee filed returns of income as in the original returns. The I.T.O. after rejecting the accounts of the assessee estimated the sales Rs. 3,84,000 and allowed expenses on estimate basis at Rs. 35,000 and net, income was worked out at Rs. 66,000.

3. It is in these circumstances that the question as mentioned above has arisen. The case of the learned counsel for the assessee was firstly that mere fact that the return had been wrongly signed by an assessee is an irregularity which is curable and could not be held to be an invalid return. Secondly, it was submitted, that it was a bona fide mistake of the assessee which could be committed by any human being and therefore should have been got rectified by the I.T.O. It was further submitted that admittedly the assessee had filed returns "within time and the tax has also been deposited on the basis of the returns. Therefore it could not be said that no return had been filed in the eyes of law. The learned D.R. conceded this fact was admitted that the return had been filed 'by the assessee within limitation. He however, reiterated that the return, which has not been properly signed was an invalid return. 4 We have considered the arguments of the parties. In similar circumstances the Tribunal has already held in a Single Bench case reported as (1987) PTD (Trib:) 632 that mere non-signing of the return was only an irregularity and therefore curable where the factum of filing the return was not disputed. Here we would like to quote from the order of the Tribunal cited above: "It is therefore evident that there has not been any violation of statutory provisions because footnote being only a guideline, cannot be taken as part of the statute. At best return, which has not been signed could be an irregularity which can always be cured. As stated above, the factum of filing of return has not been disputed by the assessee.

5. In Muhammad Hanif v. Jia Bibi reported PLD 1963 J & K 8 an unsigned appeal was held to be validly filed and non-signing of appeal was held to be a mere irregularity.

6. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the return filed by the assessee was a valid return as factum of filing of return had not been disputed nor the tax paid thereon. We, therefore; set aside the assessment and remit the case back to the I.T.O. with the direction that the assessment may be finalized on the basis of the original return. If the assessee's return is qualified under the Self Assessment Scheme and there is no bar against its acceptance under the SAS it should be accepted as such. The appeal is accepted. M.B.A./615/T????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.