9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (4) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case, the Tribunal was right in (a) ignoring the fact that the appellant could not have had such a huge amount for investment out of income earned in asst. yrs. 1971-72 1972-73. (b) assuming without accepting that such amounts were to be assessed under the head other sources as undisclosed income, the Tribunal ought to have held that the income can be assessed in six assessment years i.e. 1967-68 to 1972-73 rather than two assessment years, i.e. 1971-72 1972-73?" 2. These reference applications have a chequered career. They arise out of the Tribunal s order dt. 24th August, 1976 passed on the departmental appeals in ITA Nos. 1446 1447 (Mad)/1974-75 relating to asst. yrs. 1971-72 and 1972-73. The assessee who was a permanent resident of Singapore had investments in Madras during the asst. yr. 1971-72 and claimed that such investments were from the alleged remittances made from Singapore out of the funds of the assessee s husband who had a flourishing business in Singapore. The ITO did not believe that the investments during the two years were made out of the illegal remittances made from Singapore and made an addition of Rs. 21,450 for the asst. yr. 1971-72 and R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rders passed in the reference applications were set aside and they were reheard. 5. Before going into the merits of the reference applications and whether any question of law arises out of the Tribunal s common order, the preliminary objection that the reference applications were time barred had to be considered. The ld. Deptl. Rep. contended before us that the Advocate has got the authority by means of the Vakalat to receive notices on behalf of the assessee and since the Tribunal order was served on the Advocate on 21st June 1977 there has been a delay of 621 days and hence the reference applications will have to be rejected as time barred. On the other hand, the ld. C.A. for the assessee contended before us that the Advocate was not authorised agent of the assessee and since the Tribunal order was not served either on the assessee or her power of attorney holder and since the power of attorney holder came to know of the Tribunal order only in April, 1979 the reference applications are within time. In support of such contention the power of attorney agent had filed a lengthy affidavit. 6. On going through the affidavit and on hearing the arguments of both sides, we are satisf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... power of attorneyholder the advocate has got authority to receive the notice or copy of the order of the Tribunal. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Orissa High Court reported in (1959) 37 ITR 500 (Ori). There the Orissa High Court held that a pleader or advocate was not an authorised agent within the meaning of C.P.C. for the purpose of service of notice, summons or orders and that the counsel could not be deemed to be the authorised representative for the purpose of receiving the Tribunal s order as contemplated in r. 34 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules. No doubt in that decision the Vakalat filed by the advocate did not authorise him to receive the order. Simply because in this case the Vakalat authorised the advocate to receive an order it does not follow that the advocate became the authorised agent of the power of attorney holder for the purpose of service of the Tribunal order. Following the principles laid down by the Orissa High Court, (1959) 37 ITR 500 (Ori) held that the Advocate is not the authorised agent of the power of attorneyholder and hence service on him does not amount to service on the assessee or her power of attorneyholder. We also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certain amounts to the extent of Rs. 21,460 being the purchase value of a house site at Kodambakkam and Rs. 74,500 in the form of advance to Shri Ramakrishna Mudaliar (Rs. 20,000) and by way of purchase of a house building worth Rs. 54,500. Out of the above mentioned investment of Rs. 95,950, the assessee claimed that demand drafts amounting to Rs. 10,000 were received by remittances from Singapore on 15th rd 1971 and so the source for this Rs. 10,000 had been proved. Out of the balance of Rs. 85,950 the assessee stated that about Rs. 13,000 represented the sale proceeds of goods and jewels brought from abroad and the balance of Rs. 72,950 for which there is no proof regarding the source, may be treated as her income and assessed for the asst. yrs. 1967-68 to 1971-72 on spread over basis. The ITO accepted the evidence relating to the remittances of Rs. 10,000 and rejected the explanation for the balance of Rs. 85,950. So, the ITO added Rs. 21,450 in the asst. yr. 1971-72 and Rs. 80,000 during the asst. yr. 1972-73 being the unexplained investment treated as income u/s 69 of the Act. Copies of the assessment orders are marked as Annexures "A1 A2". 11. The assessee filed two sepa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
