The Director Of Income-Tax v. M/S Morgan Stanley Asset Management Inc

Ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 5800 of 2010 The Director of Income-tax - ... Appellant.(International Taxation) Mumbai Versus M/s Morgan Stanley Asset Management Inc. A/c Morgan Stanley India Investment Fund Inc. ... Respondent. With INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 5780 of 2010 The Director of Income-tax - ... Appellant.(International Taxation), Mumbai Versus M/s Morgan Stanley Asset Management Inc. A/c. Morgan Stanley Emerging Market Trust ... Respondent. With INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 5783 of 2010 The Director of Income-tax - ... Appellant.(International Taxation) Mumbai Versus M/s Morgan Stanley Asset Management Inc. A/c. Morgan Stanley Emerging Market Portfolio ... Respondent. Ladda Mr Suresh Kumar for the appellant. Mr F.V.Irani with Mr Atul K. Jasani for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.R. Joshi, JJ. DATE : 10 January,2012. P.C. :- 1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the return filed by the Assessee cannot be treated as invalid / non est return, in spite of the fact that the return was not filed in the prescribed form and was not verified in the prescribed manner provided under Section 140 of the income Tax Act, is the question raised in these three appeals. 2.The assessment year involved herein is AY 1997-98. 3.In the assessment year in question, admittedly, the return of income was filed by the authorized power of attorney holder within the time stipulated under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. However, the return of income was signed by the assessee as a Partner of the Chartered Accountants firm and not on behalf of the assessee. The Assessing Officer rejected the return on the ground that it was not filed in the prescribed form and was not verified in the manner prescribed under Section 140 (c) of the Act. Following the decision of this Court in the case of Prime Securities Ltd vs. Varinder Mehta, Assistant Ladda Commissioner of Income-tax and Anr [2009] 317 ITR 27 the Tribunal held that the defects pointed out by the Assessing Officer were curable defects and hence the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer with direction to first verify the correct status of the assessee and if the assessee is found to be an AOP as mentioned in returns filed by it, then a defect memo should be issued enabling the assessee to remove the defects in the return within the stipulated time and thereafter pass appropriate order on merits. 4.The decision of the ITAT is in accordance with law and we see no reason to entertain these appeals. Accordingly, all Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.R.Joshi,J) (J.P.Devadhar,J.)