https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189804 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. en-us Thu, 22 Mar 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Jan 2017 14:44:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189804 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 22 Mar 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189804