1959 (1) TMI 33 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of service of the Tribunal's order on the assessee's advocate.
2. Compliance with Rule 34 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1946.
3. Interpretation of the term "authorised representative" as per the Appellate Tribunal Rules and the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. Starting point for the limitation period for filing an application under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Service of the Tribunal's Order on the Assessee's Advocate:
The petitioner, Messrs. Nandram Hunatram, filed an application under Section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to treat his application under Section 66(1) as made within the time allowed. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on May 3, 1955, and handed over the order to Mr. B.N. Mohanty, the advocate for the assessee, on May 23, 1955. The Tribunal considered this date as the date of service. The petitioner received the order on June 8, 1955, and filed the application on July 29, 1955. The Tribunal rejected the application as time-barred, considering the date of service as May 23, 1955.

2. Compliance with Rule 34 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1946:
The assessee's counsel contended that Rule 34 was not strictly complied with, as the order should have been sent to the assessee directly. Rule 34 mandates that the Tribunal, after signing the order, must communicate it to the assessee and the Commissioner. The counsel argued that the 60-day period should start from the date the assessee received the order, not the advocate.

3. Interpretation of "Authorised Representative":
The Tribunal and the Department's counsel argued that the service on Mr. B.N. Mohanty was valid, as he was the recognised agent under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Department's counsel cited various provisions and rules, including Order III, Rule 1, and Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allow service on recognised agents and pleaders. However, the court noted that a pleader under the Civil Procedure Code does not automatically become a recognised agent for receiving orders, as per Order III, Rule 4.

4. Starting Point for Limitation Period:
The court referred to Rule 34 and the decision in Gopiram Bhagwandas v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which emphasized strict compliance with communication rules. The court held that the service on the advocate was not valid for starting the limitation period. The vakalatnama did not explicitly authorize the advocate to receive orders. Therefore, the limitation period should start from the date the assessee received the order.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the application under Section 66(1) should be treated as made within the time allowed, starting from the date the assessee received the order. The application was allowed with costs, and the Tribunal was directed to treat the application as timely filed.