Valid communication of Tribunal orders requires express authority; service on counsel alone does not start limitation under income-tax law.

Under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, limitation for an application under section 66(1) begins only on valid communication of the Appellate Tribunal's order to the assessee. Service of the signed order on counsel who was merely authorised to appear and argue the appeal was not enough, because that authority did not include express authority to receive the order. The Tribunal Rules required communication to the assessee, and strict construction applied in this fiscal context. Accordingly, receipt by the advocate did not start limitation, the application was within time, and the communication was treated as invalid for limitation purposes.

---

---

Issues: Whether service of the Appellate Tribunal's order on the assessee's advocate, without express authorisation to receive the order, amounted to valid communication so as to start limitation for an application under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: The limitation under section 66(1) runs from service of notice of the order, and rule 34 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1946 required the signed order to be communicated to the assessee. The authority given to counsel to appear and argue the appeal did not, by itself, include authority to receive the order. The rules relating to recognised agents and service of summons under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 did not make an ordinary pleader receiving an order in another matter a substituted recipient of the Tribunal's order. In a fiscal statute, the relevant procedural requirement was to be construed strictly, and there was no express authorisation in the vakalatnama for receipt of the order.

Conclusion: Service on the advocate was not valid communication to the assessee for the purpose of section 66(1), and limitation did not begin from the date the advocate received the order. The application was within time and was correctly allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under a fiscal enactment, authority to appear and argue does not imply authority to receive the Tribunal's order, and limitation begins only upon valid communication to the assessee or to a person expressly authorised to receive it.

---