https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283435 Communication of an ITAT order to an assessee's authorised counsel was treated as sufficient compliance with section 254(3) where the assessee had named that counsel for communications and the order was actually received by counsel. The Tribunal distinguished authorities relied on by the assessee as involving limitation issues or different factual settings, and held that the statutory object of communication had been met on the admitted facts. No further direction to re-serve the order on the assessee was warranted, and the miscellaneous petition therefore failed. en-us Mon, 29 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:18:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283435 Communication of an ITAT order to an assessee's authorised counsel was treated as sufficient compliance with section 254(3) where the assessee had named that counsel for communications and the order was actually received by counsel. The Tribunal distinguished authorities relied on by the assessee as involving limitation issues or different factual settings, and held that the statutory object of communication had been met on the admitted facts. No further direction to re-serve the order on the assessee was warranted, and the miscellaneous petition therefore failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 29 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283435