The determination of the sum payable by the assessee in the assessment order is mandatory, but non-compliance with the mandatory provisions would not vitiate the assessment order if it is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the I.T. Act.

Jagannatha Shetty, J.—The following question has been referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment order which does not contain computation of tax, as in this case, is invalid under section 143(3) and has to be annulled ?"

2. The facts, briefly stated, are these :

R. Giridhar, the assessee, was a partner in several firms. For the year 1974-75, the ITO while making the assessment, computed the income and indicated the advance tax paid and also the T.D.S. He did not determine the sum payable, but such computation was made on a separate sheet of paper accompanying the assessment of the total income.

3. The assessment order was undisputedly signed by the ITO, but the said separate sheets for paper did not contain his signature.

4. The assessment order was made on March 30, 1976.

Challenging the validity of the assessment order, the assessee appealed to the AAC. One of the grounds of attack in the appeal was that the assessment order was invalid since to tax payable for the year had not been computed and quantified therein. The AAC, while rejecting this contention, has observed thus :

"It is to be pointed out especially that the Income Tax Officer had in fact quantified the tax as should be seen from the assessment order and that the same was also communicated to the appellant. The fact that the signature of the Income Tax Officer is not appearing below the tax computation would not make the whole assessment invalid."

5. The assessee thereupon appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by following its earlier judgment in I.T.A. Nos. 590 & 591 (Bang)/77-78 and I.T.A Nos. 596 (Bang)/77-78, dated January 31, January 31, 1979, allowed the appeal by observing thus :

"So far as the question regarding validity of the assessment under section 143(3) is concerned the position here is that the assessment order contains only the competition of the income which is signed by the Income Tax Officer. The computation of tax is on a separate sheet which is not signed by the Income Tax Officer. The law on the point has been fully discussed in our order in the case of the assesses HUF in I.T.A. Nos. 590 & 591 (Bang)/77-78 and I.T.A. Nos. (Bang)/77-78, dated January 31, 1979, in which, following the J & K. High Court ruling in S. Mubarik Shah Naqshbandi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1977) 110 ITR 217 J&K and an order of the Delhi Bench 'D' of the Tribunal, it was held that the assessment order in this case does not contain the computation of tax and, therefore, the assessment is invalid and has to be annulled."

6. From the narration of the facts, what cannot be disputed is that the ITO made and assessment of the total income of the assessed He had also indicated in the order the tax deducted at source and the advance tax paid. He, however, did not determine the sum payable on the basis of the said computation immediately above his signature; but that has been determined in a separate sheet which does not contain his signature. The question is whether the assessment order could be said to have been made in accordance with the provisions of s. 143. of the I.T. Act. The relevant portion of s. 143 reads :

"...the Income Tax Officer shall, by an order in writing, make an assessment of the total income or loss of the assessee, and determine that sum payable by him or refundable to him on the bases of such assessment."

7. In CIT v. Khemchand Ramdas [1938] 6 ITR 414, the Privy council, while dealing with the scope of the word "assessment", observed :

"... the word assessment in its comprehensive sense as including the whole procedure for imposing liability upon the taxpayer. The method consist of the following steps. In the first place the taxable income of the taxpayer has to be computed. In the next place the sum pay