Communication of Tribunal orders to the assessee requires express authority to serve the lawyer for limitation purposes.

Where the statute required communication of the Appellate Tribunal's order to the assessee for limitation under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, service on the assessee's lawyer was ineffective because the power of attorney authorised only application for and taking copies, not receipt of notices or communications on the assessee's behalf. The statutory scheme in sections 33(4) and 66(1), read with Rule 34, therefore required direct communication to the assessee unless express authority to receive service was shown. On that basis, the application could not be treated as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether service of the Appellate Tribunal's order on the assessee's lawyer amounted in law to communication of the order to the assessee for the purpose of limitation under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: The memorandum of appeal indicated that notices were to be sent to the assessee at his own address. The power of attorney authorised the lawyer to apply for and take copies, but did not expressly authorise him to receive notices or communication of the Tribunal's order on the assessee's behalf. The statutory scheme in sections 33(4) and 66(1), together with Rule 34, required communication to the assessee, and the absence of express authority meant that service on the lawyer could not be treated as valid service on the assessee.

Conclusion: Service on the lawyer was not valid communication to the assessee, and the application could not be treated as time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute requires communication of the Tribunal's order to the assessee, service on a lawyer is effective only if the lawyer is expressly authorised to receive such notices for the assessee.

---