M.B.SHAH, J. - (1.) THE Income -tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following questions of law for opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : '1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in giving certain directions to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that it gave in its appellate order ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in reversing the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner exercising his discretion to admit or not to admit the appeal for adjudication ?'
(2.) AT the time of hearing of this reference learned counsel for the parties submitted that if question No. 3 is decided in favour of the assessee, questions Nos. 1 and 2 would not be required to be decided. Therefore, first we would decide question No. 3. In the present case, the controversy pertains to the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income -tax, Ahmedabad Range VI, in Appeal No. IT/CC.I/21 of 1975 -76 filed by the applicant, Rajendrakumar Maneklal (Hindu undivided family Ahmedabad), with regard to the order passed for the assessment year 1972 -73. Before the appellate authority, it was contended by the Income -tax Officer, by filing written objections on January 3, 1977, against entertaining the appeal, that the appeal was not properly field by the appellant as the appeal from did not bear the signature of the applicant and was not signed by him but signed by somebody else. To that objection, the applicant contended that the appeal form really bore his signature and even if it was considered that the appeal from was not signed by him he should be permitted to submit a revised appeal in Form No. 35 duly signed by him. Subsequently, along with the signature, a revised appeal in Form No. 35, duly signed by him, was submitted to the appellate authority and condonation of delay in filing the appeal prayed for.
(3.) THEREAFTER , after considering various decisions cited before him the appellate authority arrived at the conclusion that with the revised appeal memo duly field by the appellant, the Income -tax Officer's objection to entertain the appeal has to be overruled and he admitted the appeal for adjudication by condoning the delay. That order was passed by him under section 249(3) of the Act. Thereafter, the appeal was decided by him on the merits and was treated as allowed by order dated January 17, 1978.;