Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLG 1481 1991 SLD 1481 (1991) 188 ITR 634
Kerala High Court

K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND D.J., JAGANNADHA RAJU, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Commissioner of IncomE tax

v.

Chemmeens (Regd.)

Law:

Section:

Section 143 read with section 288 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment - Additions to income - Assessment year 1977-78 - Addition of certain amount was made to income of assessee-firm on ground that one 'T', who was stated to be financial advisor of assessee, agreed to disallowance of said amount - As a final fact finding authority, Tribunal found that no authorisation in writing by assessee in favour of 'T' ever existed nor was any material shown before Tribunal to justify that 'T' was in fact an authroised agent - Further, there was no entry in order sheet on relevant date to show that 'T' acted as authroised agent of assessee - Whether on facts, Tribunal was justified in holding that assessee was not bound by agreement, if any, made by 'T' for addition of said amount and, thus, said addition, stated to be on agreed basis, was unsustainable and illegal - Held, yes FACTS One 'T', who was stated to be the financial advisor of the assessee-firm, appeared before the ITO and signed on a sheet of paper agreeing to the disallowance of certain amount. Accordingly, the ITO while completing the assessment made addition of the said amount. The assessee pleaded that 'T' was neither authorized to represent the assessee, nor had he informed the assessee about the agreement and, therefore, it was not binding on it. The addition was deleted by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that, in the light of the complete accounts maintained, the addition was unjustified and unwarranted. On further appeal by the revenue, the Tribunal held that 'T' was not an authorised agent of the assessee nor was there any material to show that in fact 'T' agreed to the disallowance as authorised by the assessee. On reference: HELD As a final fact finding authority, the Tribunal had found that no such authorisation by the assessee in favour of 'T' ever existed, nor was any material shown before the Tribunal to justify that 'T' was in fact an authroised agent. There was no entry in the order sheet on the relevant date to show that 'T' acted as the authorized agent of the assessee. Whether 'T' was authorized by the assessee to represent it, was a question of fact. Section 288 requires the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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