COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. MOTI RAM (DECD.) THROUGH L/H DHARAM PAL
LAWS(P&H)-2008-7-98
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on July 17,2008

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant
VERSUS
Moti Ram (Decd.) Through L/H Dharam Pal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) THE Revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the order dt. 20th Aug., 2007, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 439/Chd/2007 for the asst. yr. 2003 -04, by raising the following substantial question of law : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) holding the return of income and assessment framed as null and void?
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the return of income in this case was filed on 28th Nov., 2003, after the death of the assessee, as the assessee had expired on 14th Sept., 2003. The return of income was signed by the assessee himself during his lifetime, but the same was filed after his death. In the return of income, only agriculture income of Rs. 2,20,000 was shown by the assessee. The AO made the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, in spite of the contention raised that the return filed by the assessee was null and void. The legal heirs of the assessee challenged the validity of the assessment order before the CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the legal heirs of the assessee held that the return filed in the name of the assessee after his death was null and void ab initio. Hence, any action taken on such a return was also null and void. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal, who vide its order dt. 20th Aug., 2007, upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on the ground that the deceased assessee did not authorise any person, including his legal heirs, to sign the return of income, when he was alive. It was further observed that the return filed in this case was null and void, because the assessee was not alive at the time of filing of return and the legal heirs have not signed the return on behalf of the assessee. Against the said order, the Revenue has filed the instant appeal, raising the aforesaid substantial question of law.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the Revenue and going through the impugned order, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal. In the present case, it is not disputed that the assessee expired on 14th Sept., 2003, whereas the return of income having the signatures of the deceased assessee was filed on 28th Nov., 2003. When the return was filed, the assessee was not alive, though the return filed was bearing his signatures. Sections 139 and 140 of the Act, which are relevant for the adjudication of the issue raised in this appeal are reproduced below: 139. (1) Every person, - (a) .... (b) being a person other than a company or a firm, if his total income or the total income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to Income Tax, shall, on or before the due date, furnish a return of his income or the income of such other person during the previous year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed: Provided.... (1A) .... 140. The return under Section 139 shall be signed and verified - (a) in the case of an individual, - (i) by the individual himself; (ii) where he is absent from India, by the individual himself or by some person duly authorised by him in this behalf; (iii) where he is mentally incapacitated from attending to his affairs, by his guardian or any other person competent to act on his behalf; and (iv) where, for any other reason, it is not possible for the individual to sign the return, by any person duly authorised by him in this behalf: Provided that in a case referred to in Sub -clause (ii) or Sub -clause (iv), the person signing the return holds a valid power of attorney from the individual to do so, which shall be attached to the return. (b) .... (c) .... (d) .... (e) .... (f) in the case of any other person, by that person or by some person competent to act on his behalf.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.