https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59100 The Tribunal held that the first memorandum of appeal, lacking Mrs. Koder's signature, was valid due to the firm's competence to act on her behalf. Despite the second memorandum's delay and oversight in filing for condonation, the Tribunal found the explanation satisfactory and entertained the appeal. The Tribunal concluded that the firm of chartered accountants was competent to represent Mrs. Koder based on circumstances, interpreting Wealth-tax Rules. The Tribunal emphasized reasonable impossibility for signing and competency to act on another's behalf, ultimately allowing the appeal without delving into the alternative argument under section 42C of the Wealth-tax Act. en-us Tue, 29 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Dec 2010 18:56:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59100 The Tribunal held that the first memorandum of appeal, lacking Mrs. Koder's signature, was valid due to the firm's competence to act on her behalf. Despite the second memorandum's delay and oversight in filing for condonation, the Tribunal found the explanation satisfactory and entertained the appeal. The Tribunal concluded that the firm of chartered accountants was competent to represent Mrs. Koder based on circumstances, interpreting Wealth-tax Rules. The Tribunal emphasized reasonable impossibility for signing and competency to act on another's behalf, ultimately allowing the appeal without delving into the alternative argument under section 42C of the Wealth-tax Act. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Tue, 29 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59100