TMI Blog1959 (5) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ehalf of the assessee. When the appeal was taken up for hearing on the 21st February, 1956, an objection was taken by the authorised agent of the Income-tax Department that the appeal was not maintainable as it was not signed by the assessee herself. This objection was accepted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on the ground that there was nn power granted to Srimati Parbati Devi for signing the memorandum of appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by the power-of-attorney dated the 5th of January, 1952 The appeal was accordingly rejected by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. At the instance of the assessee the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of the High Court:-- (1) Whet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e allowed the petition of the assessee filed on the 20th April, 1956, for amending the memorandum of appeal and affixing her signature thereto. Any irregularity of the assessee in not signing the original memorandum of appeal could be rectified by an amendment, and the amendment would take effect from the date the memorandum of appeal was originally filed A similar view has been expressed by tho Calcutta High Court in Sheonath Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal 1958-33 ITR 591 : (AIR 1958 Cal 606), in which a memorandum of appeal, signed and verified only by the authorised representative and not by the assessee, was filed. Subsequently a second memorandum was filed in which the assessee had signed below the verification but on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , AIR 1925-Mad 660. For these reasons we are of opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case the signature of Parbati Devi in the memorandum of appeal as duly constituted agent of the assessee was a valid signature and, in any event, in view of the petition filed by the assessee on the 20th April, 1956 removing the defect of want of her signature, there was a proper appeal presented before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and that appeal could not be dismissed on the ground that it was barred by time. Accordingly, we answer the first question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to the High Court in favour of the assessee and against the Income-tax Department. 3. In view of our answer to the first question, the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
