1982 (8) TMI 85 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT Bombay-B upholds assessee's return validity, rules assessment time-barred. (a)

INCOME TAX OFFICER. Versus KASHMIR RAM SINGH.

The ITAT Bombay-B ruled in favor of the assessee, upholding the validity of the return filed by the constituted attorney under section 140(a) of the IT ... - Issues:1. Validity of the return filed by the assessee under the signature of his constituted attorney2. Assessment being time-barred under section 153 of the IT Act3. Jurisdiction of the ITAT to consider the issue of limitation raised by the assesseeAnalysis:1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the validity of the return filed by the assessee under the signature of his constituted attorney. The ITAT Bombay-B heard the appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A) that deemed the return valid under section 140(a) of the IT Act, 1961. The CIT(A) relied on previous court decisions to support the validity of the return, while the revenue contested this decision, arguing that the return was not validly signed by the assessee himself, thus falling under section 147(a) of the IT Act. The ITAT ultimately ruled in favor of the assessee, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissing the revenue's appeal.2. Another crucial issue addressed by the ITAT was the assessment's time-bar under section 153 of the IT Act. The assessee contended that the assessment for the year 1972-73, which was reopened by the ITO in 1976, was time-barred as per the provisions of section 153(1)(c) and 153(2)(b). The ITAT carefully examined the timeline of events leading to the assessment and determined that the assessment made on 18th September 1980 was indeed time-barred. This finding supported the assessee's defense on this ground, leading to the upholding of the CIT(A)'s order on different grounds.3. Lastly, the jurisdiction of the ITAT to consider the issue of limitation raised by the assessee was also a point of discussion. The ITAT referenced relevant legal precedents and rules to justify the assessee's eligibility to raise this issue before the Tribunal, especially since it was previously raised before the CIT(A) and was deemed decided against the assessee. The ITAT exercised its discretion to allow the assessee to present this issue before the Tribunal, ensuring that all necessary conditions were met before permitting the argument.In conclusion, the ITAT Bombay-B's judgment addressed the validity of the return filed by the constituted attorney, the time-barred assessment under section 153, and the jurisdiction to consider the limitation issue raised by the assessee. The ruling favored the assessee on both the validity of the return and the time-barred assessment, ultimately dismissing the revenue's appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of legal provisions, precedents, and procedural rules in determining the outcome of the case.