1982 (8) TMI 83 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of return filed by the assessee under the signature of constituted attorney.
2. Jurisdiction of the ITO to initiate proceedings under section 147(a).
3. Assessment time-barred under section 153(1)(c) and 153(2)(b).

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of return filed by the assessee under the signature of constituted attorney
The appeal was filed by the revenue against the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing that the return filed by the assessee under the constituted attorney's signature was not valid under section 140(a) of the IT Act. The ITO rejected the return as invalid since it was not signed by the assessee himself. The CIT(A) relied on previous court decisions and held the return to be valid. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the provisions of section 140(a) were against the assessee. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision on this issue.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the ITO to initiate proceedings under section 147(a)
The ITO had reopened the assessment under section 147(a) based on the belief that the original return filed by the constituted attorney was invalid. The CIT(A) canceled the assessment, stating that the ITO had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 147(a) as the return was considered valid. The Tribunal, however, found that the assessment was validly reopened by the ITO, leading to the completion of the assessment under section 143(3) r/w section 144B of the IT Act.

Issue 3: Assessment time-barred under section 153(1)(c) and 153(2)(b)
The assessee raised the issue of the assessment being time-barred under section 153(1)(c) and 153(2)(b) before the CIT(A), but it was not addressed in the order. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to raise this issue before them under Tribunal Rule 27. The Tribunal found that the assessment made on 18th Sept., 1980, was time-barred as the last date available for assessment was 15th Sept., 1980. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on different grounds, dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on the grounds of the assessment being time-barred, while also addressing the validity of the return filed by the constituted attorney and the jurisdiction of the ITO to initiate proceedings under section 147(a). The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s decision was upheld.