Validity of return and limitation in income tax: attorney-signed return was invalid, but assessment failed as time-barred.

For an individual assessee, a return of income signed by a constituted attorney was held not to satisfy section 140(a) unless a statutory exception applied, and section 292B was not treated as curing a defect that existed when the return was filed. The Tribunal also accepted that the assessee could support the appellate order on the alternative ground of limitation under Rule 27, since the point had been raised earlier and the relevant facts were already on record. On those facts, the assessment was completed after the statutory time limit and was therefore time-barred, so the cancellation of the assessment was sustained on limitation grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a return of income signed by the assessee's constituted attorney was a valid return under the Act; (ii) whether the assessee could raise, before the Tribunal, the alternative plea that the assessment was barred by limitation, and whether the assessment was time-barred.

Issue (i): Whether a return of income signed by the assessee's constituted attorney was a valid return under the Act.

Analysis: The statutory requirement under section 140(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the case of an individual, was that the return had to be signed by the individual himself, unless the case fell within the specified exceptions. The earlier Bombay High Court decisions relied upon by the assessee were distinguished on their facts, as they turned on departmental conduct or special circumstances not present here. Section 292B, introduced later, was held not to validate a return which was invalid when filed.

Conclusion: The return signed by the constituted attorney was not a valid return, and this contention was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee could raise, before the Tribunal, the alternative plea that the assessment was barred by limitation, and whether the assessment was time-barred.

Analysis: The limitation plea had been raised before the first appellate authority and was not adjudicated there, so it was treated as having been decided against the assessee by implication. The Tribunal permitted the assessee to support the order on this alternative ground under Rule 27 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, since the facts were already on record and the Revenue had been given an opportunity to meet the point. On the facts, the statutory deadline for completing the assessment had expired before the assessment order was passed.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to raise the limitation plea, and the assessment was time-barred; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order cancelling the assessment was sustained on the ground of limitation, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment made after the expiry of the statutory limitation period is void, and an assessee may support a favourable appellate order on an alternative legal ground under Rule 27 where the necessary facts are already on record.

---