JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, C.J. - These are two applications u/s 256(2) of the income tax Act of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by the Assessee for a direction to the Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, to state a case and refer the following three questions said to be of law arising out of the appellate order for opinion of the Court: (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct to ignore the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of income tax with regard to irregularities committed in the order-sheet and on the body of the order, on the basis of the argument canvassed by the Department which were made not in accordance with Rule 10 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunals legally correct to conclude that irregularities found in the order-sheet and on the body of the order do not invalidate the order of penalty? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal is not perverse being inconsistent with the evidence on record or/and being contradictory to the facts found by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who verified the official records and recorded his finding. 2. The two years in question are assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. The due date of filing returns for these two years were 30th of June, 1968 and 30th of June, 1969 respectively, but the Assessee filed the returns for these two years on 7-2-1971 and 6-2-1971 respectively. The income tax Officer initiated proceedings u/s 271(1)(1) of the Act by issuing notice on 30th of August. 1971. Assessee furnished its written explanation on 15-3-1974 and penalty was imposed at Rs. 7,144/- and Rs. 11,730/- for the respective years. Assessee's appeals were allowed by the Appellate Assistant commissioner and upon appeal by the Revenue to the Tribunal, the Tribunal vacated the findings of the Appellate. Assistant Commissioner and restored those of the income tax Officer by saying: The only point now left for our consideration is whether there was any reasonable cause for delayed submission of the returns by the Assessee. Assistant Commissioner and restored those of the income tax Officer by saying: The only point now left for our consideration is whether there was any reasonable cause for delayed submission of the returns by the Assessee. The Assessee's case was that on the basis of earlier amendments already made it was hunger impression that if returns were filed, the income tax Officer would raise further huge demands which the Assessee was not in a position to pay in consideration of its assets. In other words, the Assessee was afraid of the collapse of its business on account of its inability to pay the demand that would have been raised by the income tax Officer if returns were filed. In our considered opinion, this reason cannot be regarded as a reasonable cause for non-filing of returns within the specified time; rather it goes against the Assessee, for it can be legitimately presumed from this contention of the Assessee that it was aware of its obligation to file the return in terms of Section 139(1) but they were not filed in apprehension of payment of heavy taxes which might collapse its business. The income returned by the Assessee also go to suggest that the Assessee was cautious about proper running of its business but returns were not filed in order to defraud the Revenue. The past records of the Assessee further prove the fact of its habitual conduct of similar offence. The entirety of the circumstances would go to indicate that this was a case where penalties u/s 271(1)(1) of the Act were rightly imposed and that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not justified in cancelling them.... 3. Assessee had contended before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by relying upon a copy of the demand notice issued to it for these years that they were dated 12th March, 1974. Assessee had been asked to offer its explanation by 15th March. 1974 and on that date written explanation was furnished. It was, therefore, contended that imposition of penalty could not have been made on 12.3.1974 and the demand could not be signed on that day. The original records were produced before us as per our direction and we have verified the same. We are inclined to think that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner clearly went wrong in appreciating the actual position. It was, therefore, contended that imposition of penalty could not have been made on 12.3.1974 and the demand could not be signed on that day. The original records were produced before us as per our direction and we have verified the same. We are inclined to think that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner clearly went wrong in appreciating the actual position. There can be no dispute that if the orders were actually dated 12th March, 1974, while the Assessee had been asked to offer its explanation by 15th March, 1974, the orders would be bad. The order-sheets by the two proceedings do not support the contention that the orders were dated 12th March, 1974, while the cases were heard on 15th March. 1974. The order-sheets seem to have been duly maintained and they have been regularly signed by the officer. As we find, the penalty proceedings were fixed for hearing to 12-3-1974 by order dated 20th of February, 1974. The older by which penalty has been imposed seems to have been dated 12/15-3-1974. The contention raised in the explanation seems to have been taken into account while imposing the order of penalty. Though there is some confusion on account of two separate orders not having been written one on 12th March and another on 15th March, the material available on record does not go to conclusively, indicate that the order was actually passed on 12th March, 1974 while Assessee offered his explanation on 15th March, 1974. The presumption attached to the correctness of official records cannot be taken away merely by assumptions or suggestions raising doubts. 4. We, however, do not appreciate the practice prevailing in the income tax Department of issuing orders to Assessees without the signature of the income tax Officer or even the official seal. Proceedings under the Act are important ones. They deal with citizens, impose tax on them and for non-compliance of directions, Assessees make themselves liable for being visited with penalty. It is appropriate that the order-sheets should be properly maintained, orders issued out from the income tax establishments should be July sealed and signed by the officers. Proceedings under the Act are important ones. They deal with citizens, impose tax on them and for non-compliance of directions, Assessees make themselves liable for being visited with penalty. It is appropriate that the order-sheets should be properly maintained, orders issued out from the income tax establishments should be July sealed and signed by the officers. Since it is not the contention of the Standing Counsel that any statutory provisions authorise unsigned and unsealed documents to be issued out of the office, we take it that the prevailing practice is more out of default in complying with the normal requirements by the public officers and we expect that the Commissioner of income tax will issue appropriate circulars and ensure that such defects do not occur henceforward. 5. In our view, the question is completely one of fact and the Tribunal was right in refusing to refer the questions posed by the Assessee for opinion of the Court. Both the applications are accordingly rejected. We make no order as to costs. J.K. Mohanty, J. 6. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed