https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341952 A reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act was returned unanswered because the Revenue had not been served and no affidavit of service or authorised appearance was filed. The Court noted that constructive notice could not be presumed without a vakalatnama or other authority enabling appearance for the Revenue. Applying Rule 658 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, it held that the party at whose instance the reference is made must take steps to serve the opposite party and bring the matter to final conclusion; since the assessee did not prosecute the reference, the reference was treated as not prosecuted and returned unanswered. en-us Wed, 29 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Apr 2017 08:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341952 A reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act was returned unanswered because the Revenue had not been served and no affidavit of service or authorised appearance was filed. The Court noted that constructive notice could not be presumed without a vakalatnama or other authority enabling appearance for the Revenue. Applying Rule 658 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, it held that the party at whose instance the reference is made must take steps to serve the opposite party and bring the matter to final conclusion; since the assessee did not prosecute the reference, the reference was treated as not prosecuted and returned unanswered. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341952