Statutory return validation and limitation bar: attorney-signed return was invalid, and the assessment was time-barred.

An individual income-tax return must comply with the statutory signature and verification requirement under section 140(a); a return signed only by a constituted attorney was held invalid, and section 292B could not cure that defect. The assessee was also permitted under rule 27 to support the appellate result on the alternative ground of limitation, since the point had been raised below and required no fresh facts. On the merits, the assessment completed on 18 September 1980 was beyond the prescribed period under section 153 and was therefore time-barred and bad.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a return of income signed by the assessee's constituted attorney was a valid return under section 140(a); (ii) whether the assessee could support the appellate order on the additional ground that the assessment was barred by limitation and, if so, whether the assessment completed on 18 September 1980 was time-barred.

Issue (i): Whether a return of income signed by the assessee's constituted attorney was a valid return under section 140(a).

Analysis: The statutory requirement under section 140(a) mandated that, in the case of an individual, the return be signed and verified by the individual himself, subject to the limited statutory exceptions. The earlier decisions relied upon for the assessee were distinguished on their facts, as those cases involved situations where the department had itself accepted the return or where a valid representative situation existed. Section 292B could not validate a return that was invalid when filed, particularly where the provision was introduced later.

Conclusion: The return signed by the constituted attorney was not a valid return; this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee could raise the limitation ground in support of the appellate order and whether the assessment was time-barred.

Analysis: The limitation point had been raised before the first appellate authority and, though not specifically dealt with, could be supported before the Tribunal under rule 27 as a defensive ground. The Tribunal held that no fresh facts were required and that the revenue had been given an opportunity to meet the contention. On the merits, the assessment timeline showed that the last permissible date for completion had expired before the assessment was made, and the assessment completed on 18 September 1980 fell outside the allowable period under section 153.

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

Final Conclusion: The appellate order was sustained because the assessment could not survive on limitation, and the revenue's appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A return by an individual must satisfy the statutory signature requirement, and an assessment completed beyond the prescribed limitation period is invalid; a respondent may support the appellate result on an alternative ground already raised below under rule 27.

---