Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar v. Prem Kumar Bhagat

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

Sudershan Kumar filed a return as agent of his non-resident brother Prem Kumar Bhagat for AY 1973-74. Two appellate orders required the assessing authority to determine that representative status after hearing him, but no specific appointment order followed.

Source: PDF p. 2

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

The Court treated section 163(2) and the unchallenged appellate directions of 25 August 1978 and 10 November 1982 as binding. Signing the return did not excuse non-compliance with those directions.

Source: PDF p. 5

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

All referred questions were answered for the assessee and against Revenue; the Tribunal’s cancellation of the assessment was sustained.

Source: PDF p. 6

4. OUTCOME

Revenue failed because the required agent-status order had not been passed despite binding directions.

Source: PDF p. 6

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

The final appellate directions are central

The holding cannot be reduced to an abstract notice proposition. The Court expressly relied on two final appellate orders requiring a specific determination of agency.

Source: PDF p. 5

Preserve the qualification concerning voluntary conduct

Page 6 acknowledges that holding oneself out as agent might otherwise affect whether a notice failure invalidates assessment. That possibility could not override the binding directions in this case.

Source: PDF p. 6

Agency is not automatically carried into another year

The Court notes that agency for one assessment year does not necessarily establish agency for the next. Identify the relevant year and order before applying the result.

Source: PDF p. 6