9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Tribunal setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. 2. Tribunal giving directions to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. 3. Tribunal reversing the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's discretion to admit the appeal. Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Rajasthan addressed questions referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the actions of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in a specific case. The controversy arose from an appeal filed by an individual against an assessment order for the year 1972-75. The Income-tax Officer objected to entertaining the appeal, claiming the appellant's signature was missing on the appeal form. The appellant contended that the form indeed bore his signature and submitted a revised appeal form duly signed by him, seeking condonation of the delay in filing. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, after considering the submissions and relevant case law, overruled the objection, admitted the appeal for adjudication, and eventually allowed it on merits. The Department challenged this decision before the Tribunal, arguing that the appeal form lacked the applicant's signature, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner erred in allowing the appeal without verifying the signature's authenticity. The Tribunal accepted the Department's contention, remanded the matter to verify the signature, and directed examination by a handwriting expert. The appellant then sought reference, leading to the Tribunal referring questions of law to the High Court. The High Court analyzed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision and concluded that the discretionary power exercised in condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for adjudication was justified. The Court noted that the revised appeal form, duly signed by the appellant, was submitted, and the Department would not suffer any loss or prejudice by admitting the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal's interference in reversing the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision was deemed unwarranted. Consequently, the High Court answered question No. 3 in the negative, in favor of the assessee, and against the Revenue. As a result of the decision on question No. 3, the High Court did not address questions 1 and 2, leaving them unanswered. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with the judgment favoring the assessee based on the analysis of the discretionary powers exercised by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in admitting the appeal for adjudication despite the initial signature-related objection raised by the Income-tax Officer.
|
