1956 (3) TMI 45 - HC - Income Tax

Court overturns Tribunal decision, emphasizes notice requirements for proper communication to assessee.

Gopiram Bhagwandas Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bihar and Orissa, Patna

The Court allowed the application under section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, directing the Tribunal to treat the application under section 66(1) as ... - Issues:- Application under section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act for direction to treat application under section 66(1) as within time.- Interpretation of provisions regarding communication of orders to the assessee.- Validity of notice served on lawyer instead of the assessee.- Authority of lawyer to accept notices on behalf of the assessee.Analysis:The petitioner filed an application under section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, seeking direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to treat his application under section 66(1) as within time. The Tribunal had dismissed the application as time-barred, as the copy of the order was received by the assessee's lawyer on a date earlier than when the assessee received it. The petitioner contended that the application was within time as per the provisions of the Act and rules framed thereunder. The petitioner had clearly stated in the appeal form that all notices should be sent to him directly and not to his lawyer or agent, emphasizing the importance of notice communication in such matters.The Court referred to previous judgments emphasizing the need for express written authorization for agents to receive notices on behalf of the assessee. The power given to the lawyer did authorize him to apply for and take delivery of copies but did not specifically mention acceptance of notices on behalf of the assessee. The Court highlighted the importance of notice service as per the provisions of the Act, which require communication of orders to the assessee directly. The Tribunal's decision was challenged on the grounds that the notice served on the lawyer was not a valid communication to the assessee as required by law.The Court further analyzed the address on the notice, which indicated the lawyer's address in Patna while mentioning the destination as Dhanbad. This discrepancy raised doubts about whether the notice was sent to the authorized agent of the assessee. The Court concluded that the Tribunal incorrectly interpreted the lawyer's authority to receive orders on behalf of the assessee, emphasizing the necessity of valid and legal notice communication to the assessee. Consequently, the application was allowed, directing the Tribunal to treat it as if made within the allowed time under section 66(1) of the Act. The hearing fee was fixed at Rs. 100, and the application was allowed.