Verification Part of ITR (e-Return) - Technical Issue
This query is : Resolved
23 January 2009
Dear All,
I came across very strange situation which i want to share with u all.
One of Pvt Ltd Co. has uploaded its return of income in ITR-6. ITR-V was generated showing date of filing of e-return & place was 'BY DEFAULT' shown as Mumbai as its Regd Ofifce is in Mumbai & date of verification 'BY DEFAULT' shown as Date of e-return uploaded.
Now ITR-V was given for sign to Director whose name was shown in Verification Part. Director refused to sign as he was not present in Mumbai on the date on which e-return was uploaded.
How to overcome this kind of situations?
Suggest the suitable course of action.
I came across very strange situation which i want to share with u all.
One of Pvt Ltd Co. has uploaded its return of income in ITR-6. ITR-V was generated showing date of filing of e-return & place was 'BY DEFAULT' shown as Mumbai as its Regd Ofifce is in Mumbai & date of verification 'BY DEFAULT' shown as Date of e-return uploaded.
Now ITR-V was given for sign to Director whose name was shown in Verification Part. Director refused to sign as he was not present in Mumbai on the date on which e-return was uploaded.
How to overcome this kind of situations?
Suggest the suitable course of action.
23 January 2009
Dear,
Conveyance your director by showing the proof and get signed the verification part.
Conveyance your director by showing the proof and get signed the verification part.
23 January 2009
Dear Amarpal,
Thnks for ur reply
But i didn't get u. Wht proof can be shown?
Thnks for ur reply
But i didn't get u. Wht proof can be shown?
03 August 2025
You're describing a **technical + procedural issue** in the early days of e-filing (circa 2009) under the **old ITR-V verification system**, where:
* The ITR-V form **auto-populated**:
* **Date of verification** as the **date of uploading** the return.
* **Place** as per the **jurisdiction or registered office** (e.g., Mumbai).
The **Director**, whose name was auto-filled in the verification section, **refused to sign** because **he was not physically present in Mumbai** on the auto-filled verification date — raising concern about the **accuracy of the declaration**.
Let’s break this down and suggest what to do.
---
### ✅ First: Understand What the ITR-V "Verification" Really Means
The ITR-V (acknowledgment) under the e-filing process is:
* A **confirmation** that the return filed is correct to the best of knowledge.
* It **does not require physical presence** at the place mentioned in the form.
* The **“Place” and “Date”** on ITR-V are **auto-generated by the system** and **do not carry legal implication** about physical location.
---
### ✅ Clarification from Income Tax Department (Practice-Based):
By design:
* The **“place” shown in the ITR-V** is **not material** to the validity of the return.
* The **Director or signatory’s presence** at that place on that day **is not required** under law.
* What matters is **valid digital/e-verification**, or **signed ITR-V being sent to CPC (for that era)**.
---
### ✅ Options to Handle the Situation:
#### Option 1: **Explain to Director**
* Inform him that **physical presence in Mumbai is not legally required**.
* The system-generated “Place” is **not a declaration** of actual location.
* Signing the ITR-V **does not create legal contradiction**.
This is the **most practical and correct route**.
---
#### Option 2: **Re-file the Return (not recommended unless urgent)**
* Technically, if the return is not yet verified, you could:
* **Revise and re-upload** the return.
* Choose another authorized signatory available at that time.
* But this is **unnecessary**, and wasteful unless there's a **mistake in return data** itself.
---
#### Option 3: **Use Digital Signature (DSC)**
* If the company files returns using a **Digital Signature Certificate (DSC)**, there's **no need to sign or send ITR-V**.
* In that case, **the issue is bypassed entirely**.
---
### 📎 Regarding Proof:
If the Director is still worried, you can retain an **internal note**:
> "The verification date and place are system-generated and do not imply physical presence of the signatory at the mentioned location."
You don’t need to **submit any external proof**, nor is the ITD likely to raise an objection unless fraud is suspected.
---
### ✅ Summary:
| Issue | Action |
| --------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------- |
| Director refuses to sign ITR-V due to place/date mismatch | Explain it's auto-generated; signing is valid regardless |
| Legal requirement for presence at location? | ❌ No |
| Best solution | ✔️ Sign ITR-V and send to CPC / E-verify |
| Alternate (if digitally signed) | ✔️ No need for ITR-V at all |
---
Let me know if you'd like a **draft explanation** you can give to the director to clarify this.
* The ITR-V form **auto-populated**:
* **Date of verification** as the **date of uploading** the return.
* **Place** as per the **jurisdiction or registered office** (e.g., Mumbai).
The **Director**, whose name was auto-filled in the verification section, **refused to sign** because **he was not physically present in Mumbai** on the auto-filled verification date — raising concern about the **accuracy of the declaration**.
Let’s break this down and suggest what to do.
---
### ✅ First: Understand What the ITR-V "Verification" Really Means
The ITR-V (acknowledgment) under the e-filing process is:
* A **confirmation** that the return filed is correct to the best of knowledge.
* It **does not require physical presence** at the place mentioned in the form.
* The **“Place” and “Date”** on ITR-V are **auto-generated by the system** and **do not carry legal implication** about physical location.
---
### ✅ Clarification from Income Tax Department (Practice-Based):
By design:
* The **“place” shown in the ITR-V** is **not material** to the validity of the return.
* The **Director or signatory’s presence** at that place on that day **is not required** under law.
* What matters is **valid digital/e-verification**, or **signed ITR-V being sent to CPC (for that era)**.
---
### ✅ Options to Handle the Situation:
#### Option 1: **Explain to Director**
* Inform him that **physical presence in Mumbai is not legally required**.
* The system-generated “Place” is **not a declaration** of actual location.
* Signing the ITR-V **does not create legal contradiction**.
This is the **most practical and correct route**.
---
#### Option 2: **Re-file the Return (not recommended unless urgent)**
* Technically, if the return is not yet verified, you could:
* **Revise and re-upload** the return.
* Choose another authorized signatory available at that time.
* But this is **unnecessary**, and wasteful unless there's a **mistake in return data** itself.
---
#### Option 3: **Use Digital Signature (DSC)**
* If the company files returns using a **Digital Signature Certificate (DSC)**, there's **no need to sign or send ITR-V**.
* In that case, **the issue is bypassed entirely**.
---
### 📎 Regarding Proof:
If the Director is still worried, you can retain an **internal note**:
> "The verification date and place are system-generated and do not imply physical presence of the signatory at the mentioned location."
You don’t need to **submit any external proof**, nor is the ITD likely to raise an objection unless fraud is suspected.
---
### ✅ Summary:
| Issue | Action |
| --------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------- |
| Director refuses to sign ITR-V due to place/date mismatch | Explain it's auto-generated; signing is valid regardless |
| Legal requirement for presence at location? | ❌ No |
| Best solution | ✔️ Sign ITR-V and send to CPC / E-verify |
| Alternate (if digitally signed) | ✔️ No need for ITR-V at all |
---
Let me know if you'd like a **draft explanation** you can give to the director to clarify this.
You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now
Click here to login now
Similar Resolved Queries
Unanswered Queries
- Merger issue
- Deduction for HUF
- EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 FOR UNDER CONSTRUCTION FLAT
- Salary u/s 194C
- Nill TDS Return FY 2025-26
- Upload Level Validation Error
- How to add NRE account to income tax profile?
- Form 10E requirement for Leave encashment and Gratuity received at retirement
- Sale of foreign shares by Indian resident
- AY2025-26- Bug in ITR2 Online Filing - TDS Section related to Property Sale
- GST ITC in ECL and GST PURCHASES DATA IN AIS
- GST rate on monthly hiring of commercial vehicle given for transportation.
- TAXABILITY OF STATE INSURANCE MATURITY RECEIPTS BY RAJASTHAN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE ON RETIREMENT ?
- Document to add trade name
- GST Partners addition
- Non-disclosure of Foreign Shares & Dividend in Past ITRs – How to Rectify & Report Now?
- ICWAI-Final best coaching center for online by English
- "Please ensure that the Total of the Deductions u/s 54F match the same in Table D in Sch CG"
- Refund_ Insufficient in credit ledger
- EPF Withdrawal Where to show in ITR2
Trending Online Classes
-
Input Tax Credit, GST refunds and Recovery of refunds- Roadblocks and way outs
CA Nipun Arora03 September 2025 -
GST LIVE Certification Course - 43rd Weekdays Batch(With Govt Certificate)
Industry Expert15 September 2025
CAclubindia
