Court dismisses appeal for delay in filing income tax appeal; emphasizes valid service.

The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing an income-tax appeal, emphasizing that service on the authorized representative was valid. The court held that the appeal was time-barred from the date of receipt of the order, rejecting the appellant's argument for direct service on the assessee. Citing precedents and statutory provisions, the court concluded that allowing delay in collecting the order would go against judicial norms, leading to a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the court found no merit in the application and dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

---

---

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing income-tax appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The application under section 5 of the Limitation Act sought condonation of delay in filing an income-tax appeal against an order dated November 25, 2004, for the assessment year 1997-98, reported to be 48 days late.

2. The appellant argued no delay in filing the appeal, stating the order was not served according to rule 35 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The appellant's counsel received the order but failed to inform the appellant promptly.

3. The Department contended that service on the counsel was valid as per the vakalatnama executed by the appellant-bank. The authorized representative's receipt of the order was deemed sufficient service.

4. The court analyzed section 282 of the Act, emphasizing service on the authorized representative as valid. The court referred to Order 5, rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, highlighting the authority of the counsel to accept service.

5. The court dismissed the appellant's argument that service should be on the assessee directly, stating that service on the authorized agent, i.e., the counsel, was legally acceptable.

6. The court cited precedents to support the validity of service on the authorized representative, emphasizing the importance of empowerment to accept service.

7. The court rejected the appellant's reliance on certain cases under different statutes, emphasizing the specific provisions of the Income-tax Act.

8. Concluding, the court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, stating that the appeal was time-barred from the date of receipt of the order, ensuring a definite starting point for the limitation period.

9. The court highlighted that allowing the assessee to delay collecting the order would be against judicial norms and lead to a miscarriage of justice.

10. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the application and dismissed it, consequently dismissing the appeal as time-barred.

---