9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (8) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, issued a notice u/s 148 on 29th Jan, 1976. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed another return signed by the assessee filed another return signed by himself on 4th March, 1976. During the course of the proceedings before the ITO it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the proceedings were wrongly reopened in as much as the assessee had already filed a return of income on 30th Aug, 1972. According to the ITO, however since this return was not signed by the assessee himself if it was not a valid return and the assessee's case was covered by the first limb u/s 147(a), i.e., according to him, the assessee has not filed any return as a result of which the assessee's taxable income had escaped assessment. The ITO th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Hargovindsing Narainsing vs. CIT. Further, the ld. Deptl. Rep. has referred us to the provisions of s, 140(a) of IT Act whether the assessee was under an obligation to sign the return of income by himself. 6. On behalf of the assessee, the action of the CIT(A) is supported on the basis of the Supreme Court decision in the case of the Commr. Of Agrl. IT vs. Shri Keshab Chandra Mandal (1950) 18 ITR 569 (SC). According to which, before rejecting the return as invalid the ITO was under obligation to give an opportunity to amend the return. 7. Further the ld. Counsel for the assessee sought to resist the appeal filed by the revenue and to support the order of the CIT(A) on the ground decided by him against the assessee. It was stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sep, 1980. The ITO, however, completed the assessment on 18th Sep, 1980, and hence it was barred by limitations.It was further explained by the assessee that since the CIT(A) had vacated the order of the ITO on the basis of the maintain-ability of proceedings u/s 147(a), the assessee has no grievance left. The assessee. therefore, could not and did not file a cross objection or a cross appeal. 9. On behalf of the revenue in reply, it is stated that as explained by the ld. Judges of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Karamchand Premchand Pvt. Ltd. (1969) 74 ITR 254 (Guj) the assessee was not competent to agitate the issue of limitation before the Tribunal at this stage. 10. We have carefully considered the facts and circum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee family were in charge and under the control of the Court receiver and the notice u/s 22(2) of IT Act, 1922, was served on the Court receiver. The returns submitted by him were, therefore, valid. Further, coming to the provisions of s. 292B of the IT Act and the Circular issued by the CBDT thereon relied upon by the Commr. While allowing the assessee's appeal, it may be observed that s. 292B of the IT Act, was placed on the statute book on 1st October 1975, it is doubtful how far this later piece of legislation validated a return submitted considerably prior to this date. To our mind, it does not. Thus, the provisions of s. 140(A) are against the assessee. The Bombay High Court decisions relied upon by the CIT do not help the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r side to meet the point. Actually, this issue was brought up by the assessee's counsel in the original hearing of the appeal before this Bench on 8th July 1982. With a view to giving opportunity to the revenue authorities to meet this point, the appeal was adjourned first to 12th July and then to 13th July, 1982 when the appeal was finally heard. Thus, the conditions laid down by the Bombay High Court in the case of Gilbert Barker Mfg. Co. Ltd. were duly complied with, and thereafter the assessee was permitted to raise this issue before the Tribunal. 13. We find that the Supreme Court ruling in this case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. vs.CIT 63 ITR 232(SC) relied upon by the assessee lays down that the ITAT, rr. 11 and 27 were not exhaustiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the CIT(A) and by implication was decided the issue by the CIT(A) against the assessee. Further, since all the facts relating to the determination of the issue were on record and since reasonable opportunity was given to the appellant to counter this ground, as explained by the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gilbert Barker Mfg. Co. (1978) 111 ITR 529 (Bom), the assessee was eligible for raising this issue before the Tribunal. 16. On merits on the question of limitation as per the facts on record, the assessment for the year 1972-73 was reopened by the ITO u/s 147(1)(a) on 29th January 1976. The draft assessment order was submitted by the ITO to the IAC u/s 144B on 28th March 1980. The IAC's directio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
