9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (3) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g questions, which, according to him, were questions of law and arose out of the consolidated order dated 6th September, 1978, of the Tribunal were dismissed. "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Shri Mittal had on November 17, 1976, an authority to receive notice u/s. 148 of the Income-tax Act even though on record there is nothing to prove that he is either holding a power-of-attorney or is having any other authority given to him by the assessee ? (2) Whether a notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act can be served on a 'legal practitioner' and whether it satisfies the requirement of section 282 of the Act, even though the legal practitioner neither holds a power-of-attorney ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder s. 144 of the Act on March 25, 1976, on the total income of Rs. 25,000 for each of the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. Against these ex parte assessments, the assessee moved applications for reopening but the ITO declined to reopen the assessments and rejected the assessee's applications. The assessee filed appeals before the AAC against the assessment framed under s. 144 of the Act as well as against the orders under s. 146 of the Act refusing to reopen the assessments. The question of the validity of the service of notice under s. 148 on Shri K. C. Mittal, advocate, was, inter alia, raised. The AAC, by a common order in Appeal Nos. M.D.B.36/76-77 and M.D.B.-35/76-77, held as follows: " The facts that follow show that Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egram of the assessee to reopen the proceedings under s. 146 relevant to the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 as also to the letter to which a reference had been made in the telegram. In the letter dated 16th May, 1976, that followed the telegram, the assessee had contended that because of the change in his address, he did not have knowledge about the notices issued under s. 148 and, therefore, could not file the returns in response to those notices. The AAC, by a common order in these two appeals, held that there was no justifiable reason on the part of the assessee for his failure to file the returns in time. He did not find that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing his returns under s. 148 of the Act. The order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. Sub-section (1) of this section provides that a notice or requisition under the Act may be served on the person herein named either by post or as if it were summons issued by a court under the CPC. Sub-section (2) of this section provides as to whom the notice or the requisition may be addressed in the case of a local authority or company, in the case of any other association or body of individuals and in the case of any other person (not being an individual). The two modes of service provided under s. 282, of the Act are alternative. Order 3 of the CPC deals with recognised agents and pleaders while 0. 5 thereof deals with issue or service of summons. The Tribunal while refusing to state the case on the ground that no question of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
