Srinivasa Iyengar, J.
1. The petitioner was filed these applications under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for a direction to the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following question for the opinion of this cour :
'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the order of assessment was not invalid by reason of failure to quantify the tax as required by the provisions of law ?'
2. The question sought for is common to both the years assessment, namely, 1974-75 and 1975-76.
3. It transpires that the assessee raised an additional ground of appeal before the AAC alleging that the computation of tax had not been made by the ITO as required under s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Apparently this was based on the circumstances that the signature of the ITO and his designation appear above the computation of tax which had been made in manuscript. The assessment orders had been typed ones. The AAC did not uphold this contention observing that the ITO had quantified the tax 'as could be seen from the assessment order, and that case was also communicated to the appellant....' Such a point was again raised before the Tribunal Apparently on the basis of the original record shown to it, the Tribunal observed that the computation had been made on the same page as the assessment order and hence was of the view that the 'assessment order is signed after the computation of income and computation of tax due is done on the same page. It is clearly under the authority of the Income-tax Officer even though there is no signature after the computation'. In this view, it rejected the contention of the assessee and declined to make a reference on the application filed by the assessee in that behalf.
4. In the instance cases, the assessment order were made on May 25, 1976, and in the light of s. 292B which came into force with effect from October 1, 1975, assuming that there was some omission, that would not invalidate the assessment orders. The computation of the tax had been made on the same page as the assessment orders. So it was reasonable to presume that the ITO would have signed the assessment orders after the computation of tax had been noted on that sheet. This is the view taken by the Tribunal and we cannot say that it is unreasonable.
5. In our opinion, it cannot be said that any question of law arises from out of the order of the Tribunal justifying a reference.
6. We may, however, observe that, under s. 143(3), the tax payable is to be determined by the ITO and that would no the merely a ministerial act. In these circumstances and in order to avoid any controversy, the assessment order itself should indicate that the computation of tax was also made by the ITO. Therefore, it would be appropriate if the ITO affixes his signature after the computation of tax is made and below such computation also, if it is made separately.
7. Accordingly, these petitioner are dismissed.