1949 (9) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he prescribed form was filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the 19th of February, 1945, by one Nabir Ahmad, Mukhtar-e-am, on behalf of the Special Manager, Court of Wards, representing the estate of Naraindas Narsinghdas, Gorakhpur. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner returned the memorandum of appeal on the ground that it was not signed and verified as required under the rules. The memorandum of appeal was received by the Special Manager on the 21st of February, 1945, and on the same day he passed the following order:--"Most urgent. Mukhtar-e-am to comply." The signature and the verification on the memorandum of appeal was made by the Special Manager on some subsequent date and it was again presented before the A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sioner was not an order under Section 31 of the Income-tax Act and, therefore, no appeal lay to the Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal relied on a ruling of a Division Bench of this Court in Shivnath Prasad v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central and United Provinces [1935] 3 I.T.R. 200. A point was raised before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as before the Appellate Tribunal that the rule requiring the assessee to sign the memorandum of appeal personally and not through an agent was ultra vires. The point was decided against the assessee. On an application under Section 66(1) the Tribunal has referred the following two questions to this Court:- "(1) Whether the instruction contained in the foot-note appended to Form C(1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to be signed personally by the appellant or appellants. Mr. Jagdish Swarup on behalf of the assessee has urged that it is not his contention that the whole of Rule 21 or the whole of this form is ultra vires, but his objection is only to the foot-note. The argument is based on the contention that Rule 21 provides that in the case of an appeal against the order of the Income-tax Officer under Section 25A of the Income-tax Act the appeal has to be filed in Form C(1), and the rule as regards signature by the appellant himself should have rightly been a part of Rule 21 and the foot-note of Form C(1) was not the place where these requirements about verification and signature should have been laid down. To our minds this argument has no substanc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commissioner after the expiry of the thirty days from the date of the notice of demand. The Assistant Commissioner after hearing the assessee came to the conclusion that sufficient cause was not made out for condonation of the delay. The appeal was, thereupon, not admitted and the memorandum of appeal was rejected. A Bench of this Court held that this was not an order under Section 31 of the Income-tax Act but an order under Section 30(2). Great reliance has been placed on a ruling of the Patna High Court in Maharani Gyan Manjari Kuari v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa [1944] 12 I.T.R. 59, at p. 62. The language of the two Sections 30 and 31 of the Income-tax Act certainly lends support to the view taken by the Division Bench ....