9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (9) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te duty authorities. On July 24, 1981, the petitioner made an application for enrolment as Income-tax authorised representative before the Commissioner of Income-tax. This was allowed. Thus the petitioner has been practising as Income-tax authorised representative before the Income-tax authorities, On July 1, 1983, the petitioner received a letter dated June 25, 1983, stating that he was not entit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 83, provided (i) such person is an income-tax practitioner as defined in clause (iv) of sub-section (2) of section 61 of the Income-tax Act; (ii) he has at any time before the commencement of the Estate Duty (Amendment) Act, 1958 (33 of 1958), appeared before any income-tax authority in his capacity as income-tax practitioner ; and (iii) he is not disqualified to represent an assessee i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... escribed by the CBR for the purpose aforesaid. It would thus be seen that the petitioner would be entitled to appear as authorised representative before the E.D. authorities if the two clauses are to be read disjunctively, as it is not in dispute that the petitioner fulfils the qualifications as mentioned in r. 41(i) and is not disqualified by virtue of r. 41(iii) of the E.D. Rules. Ordinarily, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it to those who may not come within the definition of I.T. practitioners as defined in s. 61 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, but had been appearing before the I.T. authorities in the capacity of I.T. practitioner. No useful purpose can be served if the rule is meant to be confined to those who had appeared as I.T. practitioner (although not fulfilling the qualification as laid down in the Act of 192 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
