TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (6) TMI 126
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal order, the Revenue approached the Tribunal vide Misc. Petition No. 124/Co'ch/98. The Tribunal dismissed the Misc. Petition among others also on the reasoning given at paras 5 and 6 of the order of the Tribunal which read as under: "Para 5: Apart from contending that the view subsequently taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in this case in respect of the earlier assessment years is of no consequence to the order passed by the Tribunal dated 14-7-1998 in ITA Nos. 694 & 695/Coch/94 relating to the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92, under consideration, as the High Court has agreed with the Tribunal in remanding the matter to the assessing officer with necessary direction, the learned representative of the assessee submitted tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....' Aggrieved by the above order of the Tribunal, the Revenue is before the Tribunal again. 3. The departmental representative submitted, that while disposing of the Misc. Petition the Tribunal did not consider in the right perspective Rule 2(ii)(b) of the ITAT Rules, 1963 and also did not consider in the right perspective the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. ITAT [1987] 167 ITR 250 as well as the decision in CIT v. P.N.N. Bank Ltd. [1969] 72 ITR 497. 4. On a query from the Bench as to whether a second Misc. Petition will he and whether it could be entertained by the Tribunal in view of the decision of the Orissa High Court in CIT v. ITAT [1992] 196 ITR 838, the departmental representative, drawing support from the decisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and the Assessing Officer can also file such application on behalf of the Commissioner. In the case in ITAT the Madras High Court held that when the senior representative signed for the Commissioner, he was not signing the application in his individual capacity nor could he be treated as an individual applicant invoking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is not necessary for the Commissioner to sign the application if there is an authorisation for the senior representative to sign on behalf of the Commissioner. The fact, that the Commissioner had not signed the application could not be a ground for rejection of the same, the High Court held. In view of the above, the learned departmental ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."Section 2(ii)'Authorised representatives' means- (b) in relation to an Income-tax authority who is a party to any proceeding before the Tribunal, a person duly appointed by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette as authorised representative to appear, plead and act for such authority in any such proceeding and any other person acting on behalf of the person so appointed." It states that a person who can represent the department before the Tribunal is a person who has been appointed by the Central Government by a Notification in the Official Gazette. In other words, if there is no authorisation by the Central Govt. and publication of the Notification in the Official Gazette such person cannot 'act' on behalf of....