9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (4) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee and ignoring the evidence already on record, the AAC set aside the assessment with the direction to the ITO to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. On behalf of the assessee, a ground was taken that the assessment appealed against had become time-barred by operation of law as the ITO did not sign the demand notice nor the order within time. The AAC did not agree with this submission. According to him, as the ITO had computed the income, the question of limitation would not arise merely because the demand notice and the challan were not signed by the ITO in time. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of the AAC, the assessee preferred a further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. It was contended by the assessee that though the assessment order was signed, the demand notice, challan and assessment Form No. I.T. 30 did not bear any signature of the ITO and, hence, the assessment order was invalid. According to the assessee, the expression " assessment " had a comprehensive meaning and if there was any omission at any stage in the completion of the assessment, in terms of the provisions of s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which included the signing of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not duly signed by the ITO. A reference was made to certain decisions to which we shall also refer. The Tribunal held that in view of the decision of this court in the case of B. K. Gooyee v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 109, it was obligatory that the Form No. I.T. 30 should have been signed by the ITO because, according to the Tribunal, otherwise it could not be held that the relevant assessment was completed before March 31, 1969, and also because the ITO after that date could not rectify the mistake so committed. The Tribunal was further of the view that the aforesaid decision supported the holding of the AAC regarding the competency of the appeal. The Tribunal considered whether it was incumbent upon the ITO to sign the I.T. 30, the assessment form, for completing the relevant assessment. Reliance was placed on several decisions about the meaning of the expression " assessment ". Also a reference was made to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Sushil Chandra Ghose v. ITO [1959] 35 ITR 379. The Tribunal was of the" view that the effect of the said decision, by implication, is that the ITO should sign the computation of tax in the form known as I.T. 30, and as in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 44 in this case had been made within the time contemplated by s. 153 of the Act. In this connection reference may be made to s. 23 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, as well as to s. 34 of the said Act. Sub-s. (3) of s. 23 provides as follows: "Section 23(3). On the day specified in the notice issued under subsection (2), or as soon afterwards as may be, the Income-tax Officer, after heating such evidence as such person may produce, and such other evidence as the Income-tax Officer may require, on specified points, shall, by an order in writing, assess the total income of the assessee, and determine the sum payable by him on the basis of such assessment." Similarly, sub-s. (3) of s. 34 is on the following terms: " Sub-section (3) of section 34. No order of assessment or reassessment, other than an order of assessment under section 23 to which clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 28 applies or an order of assessment or reassessment in cases falling within clause (a) of sub-section (1) or subsection (1A) of this section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the year in which the income, profits or gains were first assessable: Provided that where a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner, therefore has been moving under a misconception, thinking that the assessment order as served upon him contains a true copy of the original computation. Why, there should be this discrepancy in these two forms is more than I can say. But, I am satisfied that the assessment order has been made in accordance with law. These are the three points taken in this case or allowed to be taken and they all fail." These observations in the context of the facts found in that case were obiter so far as the signature on Form No. I.T. 30 is concerned. It is true that in that case the Form No. I.T. 30, was duly signed. It is also true that His Lordship mentioned that the original computation, which was in Form No. I.T. 30, " requires the signature of the Income-tax Officer ". We have not been shown any statutory requirement, either in the Act or in the Rules, that Form No. I.T. 30 should be signed by the ITO. As a matter of fact, apart from this, that there should be a computation and determination of the tax payable, there is no reference to the fact that there should be any particular Form No. I.T. 30. Reference was made to the case of C. A. Abraham v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 425 (SC) an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
