9911796707
TMI Blog1956 (3) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ows. An appeal by the petitioner-assessee was heard by the Tribunal on the 25th of March, 1955, and orders thereon were passed on the 31st of March, 1955. A copy of this order was sent to the assessee's lawyer, Mr. V.D. Narayan, and received by him on the 7th of April, 1955. For some reason or other, the copy of this order was not despatched to the assessee who ultimately received it on the 22nd June, 1955. An application under section 66(1) of the Act was then filed before the Tribunal on the 12th July, 1955, but the application was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by time. It has been contended by Mr. S.N. Dutta, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that, in view of the law provided in the various sections of the Act and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the business of the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner he is ipso facto authorised to obtain copies of the Assistant Commissioner's judgment or indeed to per- form any act preparatory or incident to the conduct of an appeal." Their Lordships at page 46 reiterated that a person asking for a copy of the judgment should be expressly authorised in writing in that behalf. It is, therefore, necessary to find out if the lawyer on whom the notice of the copy of the order was served had expressly been authorised to receive by his vakalatnama. It is clear that lie was not so authorised by the particulars given on the memorandum as required by law in which the assessee had submitted that all notices should be sent to him to his addres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 60 days of the date of an order passed under sub-section (4) of section 33. This sub-section also makes it clear that notice should be on the assessee. Rule 34 of the Rules and Orders relating to Appellate Tribunal also is in the following words: "The Tribunal shall, after the order is signed, cause it to be communicated to the assessee and to the Commissioner." The underlying intention as expressed by these various sections and rules is that notices in such matters should be communicated to the assessee or the Commissioner, as the case may be. Of course, this does not mean that notices have to be served personally on the assessee even if there is an express authorisation given by the assessee himself to some one to accept th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal to the assessee as provided by law for the reasons enumerated above. Again, the alleged service of notice is susceptible to further attacks from other aspects as well. The notice was addressed as "M/s Gopiram Bhagwandas, Post Office Dhanbad C/o Sri V.D. Narayan, Advocate, Patna." The address purports to be pointed to the assessee under care of his lawyer at Patna, although the destination is described as "P.O. Dhanbad". In this circumstance, it can very well be argued that the notice was not sent to the lawyer who was supposed to be the authorised agent of the assessee. It is clear, therefore, that the Tribunal wrongly construed the power in question to mean that it authorised the lawyer to receive orders passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
