1993 (5) TMI 47

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 163(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and as such, the ITO has committed an error in treating the appellant as an agent for the non-resident company, and therefore, the assessment framed is bad in law and invalid. The contention of the appellant did not find favour with the CIT (Appeals). He has noted that a statement of advance-tax in Form No. 28A was filed by the appellant in his capacity as an agent of the non-resident company. He has also noted that an estimate of advance-tax was also filed by the appellant in the status of agent of the non-resident company, and the tax was accordingly paid. It was also found that during the assessment proceedings the ITO had issued letters, dated 24-8-1985 and 11-11-1985, describing the appellant as an agent o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....filing a copy of the return. it has been pointed out that the return of income was filed by the non-resident company and not by the appellant. It is also pointed out that although Form No. 28A was filed by the assessee on 14-2-1982, but the same was regularised by the non-resident company by filing such form under his own signature and the same was filed on 24-2-1992, a copy of which has been brought on record. Similarly, it has been pointed out that originally Form Nos. 29 was filed by the appellant on 15-12-1982 but another form duly signed by the non-resident company was subsequently filed. According to him on the basis of Form Nos. 28A and 29 filed by the appellant, it cannot be held that the assessee was the agent of the non-resident c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... attorney of the appellant company. It is thus evident that while filing these forms, the appellant had represented itself as an agent of the non-resident company. The issue of notice and opportunity of hearing as provided in section 163(2) of the Act are only procedural steps. In the given situation, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not entitled to complain that no opportunity of hearing was provided as required under the said section. 6. It was next argued that the ITO did not pass any order treating the assessee as an agent of the non-resident company. According to the learned advocate for the assessee such an order has to be passed by the ITO before completing the assessment. He has pointed out that under the Act of 1961 an....