Invalid service on unauthorized agent doesn't nullify appeal; timely filing upheld; minor irregularity not fatal

The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming that the service of the assessment order on an unauthorized agent was invalid. Despite the delay in filing the appeal, the Court considered it timely as it was lodged promptly upon the assessee's awareness of the order. The Court deemed the failure to include the demand notice with the appeal as a minor irregularity that did not nullify the appeal. The assessee was awarded costs of Rs. 200.

---

---

Issues involved: Validity of service of assessment order on Sri R. K. Rastogi, Timeliness of the appeal filed by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.

Validity of service of assessment order: The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal found that Sri R. K. Rastogi was not an authorised agent of the assessee and that service on him was immaterial. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee came to know of the assessment order later and applied for a copy and demand notice separately. The Tribunal held that delivery of notices to Sri Rastogi was not valid according to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Tribunal referred to legal precedents to support its conclusion that service on an unauthorized agent does not constitute valid service.

Timeliness of the appeal: The appeal filed by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was beyond the prescribed time limit by one year, 11 months, and 15 days. However, the Tribunal held that since the assessee filed the appeal within time from when they became aware of the assessment order, the appeal was timely. The Tribunal also found that the failure to accompany the memorandum of appeal with the demand notice was an irregularity at most and did not invalidate the appeal.

Conclusion: The High Court answered the first question regarding the validity of service in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee. The second question regarding the timeliness of the appeal was answered in the negative, also in favor of the assessee. The assessee was awarded costs amounting to Rs. 200.

---