9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Validity of service of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act on an advocate as an authorized representative.
In this case, the applicant filed separate applications under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. The main issue revolved around the validity of serving notice under section 148 on Shri K. C. Mittal, an advocate, who was representing the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the service of notice on the advocate, considering him as the authorized representative of the assessee. The AAC also supported this stance based on the advocate's previous representation in income tax matters. The Tribunal further held that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from complying with the notice terms, leading to the direction to reopen assessments for the two years under section 144 of the Act. The Tribunal's decision was based on factual considerations, citing precedents like CIT v. Ramendra Nath Ghosh and Sashi Prasad Baruah v. Agrl. ITO to support the stance that the question of service of notice was a matter of fact. However, the High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's refusal to address the legal aspects related to the service of notice under section 148. The High Court highlighted the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) regarding the service of notice and recognized agents, emphasizing that the Tribunal's decision failed to consider these legal provisions. The High Court found that a question of law did arise from the Tribunal's order, specifically questioning the validity of the service of notice on the advocate. The High Court directed the Appellate Tribunal to state the case for each assessment year and refer the respective questions regarding the validity of serving notice under section 148 on the advocate. The Court emphasized the need to address the legal aspects and ensure a comprehensive examination of the issues raised. The judgment focused on the interpretation of legal provisions, the role of authorized representatives, and the necessity to consider both factual and legal aspects in determining the validity of serving notices in income tax matters.
|
