Kazi Mujeeboddin Mahebub Ahmed, Latur V. ITO, Wd.-3(4), Latur

ITA 196/PUN/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 56487 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K AMBARTHA
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.KARUNAKAR RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.196/PN/2010 : A.Y. 2008-09 KAZI MUJEEBODDIN MAHEBUBAHMED, ... APPELLANT DASTGIR GALLI, AHMEDPUR, AT P & TQ AHMEDPUR, DIST LATUR-413 515 P NO.AACPK 9454 R VS. I.T.O. 3(4) ... RESPONDENT LATUR APPELLANT BY: SHRI P.P.KULKARNI RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S.K.AMBARTHA DATE OF HEARING: 21 - 9-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23 -9-2011 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) AURANGABAD DATED 15-10-2009 REJECTING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE I.T.ACT 1961 FOR A.Y. 2008-09. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3. DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS P OINTED OUT THAT THE SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE AS APPEARING ON THE VERIFICATION PART OF RETURN OF INCOME WAS NOT MATCH ING WITH THE SIGNATURE ON APPEAL MEMO, GROUNDS OF APPEAL, ET C. 2 I.T.A. NO.196/PN/2010 : A.Y. 2008-09 ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO REMOVE THE S AID DEFECT. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, LEARNED A.R. OF THE A SSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE FROM THE RECORD AND THE SIGNATURE IS OF THE SAME PERSON IN BOTH THE PLACES. BEING NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION, THE A PPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY THE CIT(A), INTER ALIA, OBSERVING THAT THE SIGNATURES ARE DISTINCT AND NOT OF THE SAME PERSON. 4. BEFORE US, LEARNED A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIO NS MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND CONTENDED THAT THE SIGNA TURE IN BOTH THE PLACES IS OF THE SAME PERSON. IT IS SETTL ED LEGAL POSITION THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ADMITS HIS SIGNATURE IN BOTH THE PLACES, ALTHOUGH AT THE TIME OF SIGNING, IT MAY VARY AT DIFFERENT PLACES, IT SHOULD NOT BE DOUBTED. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN RAISING THE OBJECTION TO THAT EFFECT B ECAUSE IT IS THE ASSESSEES RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS CONDUCT AND H E CANNOT GO BACK AT ANY POINT OF TIME. IT IS ONLY THE SIGNA TORY TO DISPUTE THE SIGNATURE IN CASE THERE IS GRIEVANCE FO R THE SAME. IF DUE TO SOME REASON, THE SIGNATURE IS NOT MATCHING AND THERE IS NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE IN ANY MANNER, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS IS NOT A VALID GROUND TO R EJECT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SE T ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE SAME TO HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AS PER FACTS AND LAW AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD SEPTEMBER 2011. SD/- SD/- (D.KARUNAKAR RAO) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER 3 I.T.A. NO.196/PN/2010 : A.Y. 2008-09 PUNE DATED THE 23 RD SEPTEMBER 2011 PARIDA COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) AURANGABAD 4. THE CIT PUNE 5. THE D.R, ITAT PUNE BENCH, PUNE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL