9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (3) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- ITA No. 86 Appellant Date of deed relevant to the Asst. yr. in appeal Partners Date of filing of appeal before CIT(A) 825 Raghava Veera Industries 7th Dec., 1966 Raghava Reddy Veera Reddy 25th Oct., 1982 826 Raghava Veera 31st July, 1957 Raghava Reddy Veera Reddy 25th Oct., 1982 827 Raghava Veera Real Estates and Constructions 6th July, 1973 Hanumantha Reddy, Rohini Reddy, Ranjini Reddy, Renuka Reddy 25th Oct., 1982 828 Raghava Veera Sons 1st June, 1973 Reddy, Rohini Reddy, Ranjini Reddy, Renuka Reddy, S.R Swamy, P. Indira Reddy P. Aruna Reddy. 25th Oct., 1982 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specified in sub-r. (2) of r. 45". In the case of a firm, therefore, the appeal has to be signed by the managing partner thereof or where there is no managing partner, by any other partners. If for any unavoidable reason the managing partner is unable to sign then also any other partner can sign, but the signatory of course has to be other than a minor. We have gone through each of the partnership deeds under which the firms were constituted and of which instruments we have given the dates in the tabular statement aforesaid. We find that in none of the cases, excepting in the case of Raghava Veera Sons, is there a mention in the partnership deed that any particular partners were to exercise the managerial functions. In the case of Raghava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f one of the partners who was competent to file the appeal. 2. The CIT(A) has stated in the order that Shri Ramamani, the learned counsel had stated that signing of the appeals by a power of attorney holder was a technical mistake and that a fresh appeal duly signed by the partner would be filed. He had asked for the condonation of the delay. According to the CIT(A), the appeal was prima facie incompetent as not filed by the partner and he dismissed it. In the case of M/s Raghava Veera Sons, of course, the appeal signed by the managing partner was filed, but this was considered to be out of time. 3. The plea of the assessee before us was that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeals straight away in the cases where the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the plaint or the memorandum. How far the courts have gone can be seen from the well-known decision of the Privy Council the case of Mohini Mohan Das vs. Sungsi Buddan Saha Das, where of the several coplaintiffs of a plaint only one of them had signed and verified it, but the Privy Council nevertheless held that the suit must be deemed to have been filed by the other plaintiffs also in spite of the absence of any signature or verification by them, if only it was shown that the suit had been filed with their knowledge and authority. It has repeatedly been pointed out that what the courts have to look to in such cases is whether the plaintiff or the real appellant had intended and caused the plaint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt at its own instance and not illegalities affecting the jurisdiction of the court." 6. In the light of the clear elucidation of the position of law as aforesaid, we have no hesitation in holding that in the case of Raghava Vera Real Estates and Constructions and in the case of Raghava Veera Industries, and Raghava Veera the CIT(A) should have permitted the assessee to file a memorandum of appeal duly signed by a partner in person as requested for, and on filing the same should have considered such appeal to be in time. In the case of Raghava Veera Sons, he should have considered the appeal memo filed on 31st Jan., 1986 duly signed by Hanumantha Rao as valid and in time and should have proceeded to dispose of the appeal on merits. 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
