Law:

Section:

Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Return of income - General - Assessment year 1985-86 - Whether an assessee or any person duly authorised by assessee can seek for extension of time by filing Form No. 6 - Held, yes - Whether even if there is initial defect of want of due authorisation in that behalf on date of making application in Form No. 6, said defect can be cured by giving due authorisation in course of proceedings - Held, yes FACTS The question for consideration was whether the Form No. 6 signed by the accountant of the assessee was valid or not. HELD Form No. 6 is an application filed for extension of the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139. From the sections 139 and 140 and rule 13 of Income-tax Rules, it is clear that an application for extension of time can be filed by the person who is under a legal obligation to file his return or by any person duly authorised in that behalf by such person. If the person who seeks extension is not the assessee, the person whomakes the application for extension should produce due authorisation.Anyone who is authorised by an assessee, can seek for extension by filing Form No. 6. Even if there is initial defect of want of due authorisation on the date of making the application in Form No. 6, the said defect could be cured by giving a due authorisation in the course of the proceedings. [Para 6] In the instant case, the accountant who had signed Form No. 6 was the duly authorised representative of the assessee. Even otherwise, if there was no such authorisation, he should have filed such an authorisation within four weeks. If such an authorisation was filed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, the authority should have acted on such authorisation and treated the application filed in Form No. 6 as a valid one, made by a person who was duly authorised in that behalf. [Para 7] EDITOR'S NOTE Following the decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Amarjeet Kaur [IT Reference Case No. 48 of 1999, dated 31-1-2006], it was to be held that the Tribunal was not right in law in holding the expenditure being the cost of goods given to the depositors at…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492