Valid service on authorised advocate upheld where rules treat notice to an agent as service on the assessee.

Service of a reassessment notice on an assessee's authorised advocate was held to be valid service on the assessee because the power of attorney permitted the advocate to act, appear, conduct and plead before the Assessing Authority, bringing him within the definition of an agent under the relevant rules. Rule 66 treated service on the person concerned, or on his manager or agent, as good service, and the absence of an express clause authorising receipt of notice did not defeat validity. Authorities cited to the contrary were distinguished as not arising under pari materia rules. The notice was therefore validly served and the reassessment proceedings remained within jurisdiction and limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether service of the reassessment notice on the assessee's advocate, who had been authorised to appear before the Assessing Authority, amounted to valid service on the assessee under the statutory rules.

Analysis: The power of attorney authorised the advocate to act, appear, conduct and plead on behalf of the assessee before the Assessing Authority, and therefore he fell within the definition of an agent under rule 2(a). Under rule 66, service of notice on the person concerned or his manager or agent is good service. The absence of express authority to receive notice in the power of attorney did not matter, because the relevant rules treated service on an authorised agent as service on the principal. The cited decisions were distinguished as they did not concern rules in pari materia.

Conclusion: Service of the notice on the advocate was valid service on the assessee, and the reassessment proceedings were within jurisdiction and limitation.

---