Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the application for reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was validly signed by the advocate under the vakalat executed in the rectification proceedings, and whether it was within time.
Analysis: An application under section 66(1) need not bear the signatures of both the assessee and the advocate; the law requires the signature of either the assessee or an authorised representative. The vakalat executed for the rectification proceedings was couched in comprehensive terms and authorised the advocate to appear in the proceeding and in all proceedings connected with it or with any order passed therein. The reference application arose out of the same proceedings and was therefore covered by the authority already conferred on the advocate. In these circumstances, the application could not be treated as barred by limitation on the ground that it was unsigned by the assessee when first presented.
Conclusion: The application under section 66(1) was validly authorised and had to be treated as filed within time; the assessee succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: A vakalat covering all proceedings connected with the same matter extends to a reference application arising out of that matter, and an application under section 66(1) is valid if signed by an authorised representative.