TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (6) TMI 7
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shmi Cloth Stores, Gudivada, was a partnership firm which was dissolved in the year 1972. For the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 the managing partner, Chaparala Ranga Rao, preferred appeals on behalf of the partnership firm before the AAC, Vijayawada, against the orders of assessments passed by the ITO, Gudivada in the prescribed Form No. 35 in which it was specifically mentioned in the relevant column that notices and orders should be sent on behalf of the firm either to the managing partner, Chaparala Ranga Rao, or to his authorised representative, Sri Ramamohana Rao, Advocate, Gudivada. The AAC served his order on Sri A. Subba Rao, one of the erstwhile partners of the dissolved firm, who did not inform the writ petitioner about the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n one of the partners of the firm would be sufficient as required by the provisions of s. 283 of the I.T. Act and the appeals were, therefore, barred by limitation. Admittedly, the appeals were preferred by the managing partner of the dissolved firm in the year 1972. The address given in the memorandum of appeal is admittedly not that of Sri A. Subba Rao. Section 283 of the I.T.Act provides for the service of a notice when an HUF is disrupted or a firm is dissolved. Section 283(2) states that where a firm or other association of persons is dissolved, notices under the I.T. Act in respect of the income of the firm or association may be served on any person who was a partner (not being a minor) or member of the association, as the case may b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he advocate given in the memo of appeal is only for convenience and on that score the service effected legally on one of the partners cannot be questioned. The contention that the orders of the Tribunal are illegal and that the appeals are not barred by limitation is untenable. " From the aforesaid averments in the counter, we are satisfied that the AAC has sent the copy of the appellate order to Sri A. Subba Rao, one of the erstwhile partners of the dissolved firm, although specifically the address for service had been given in the memorandum of appeal in Form No. 35 as that of the writ petitioner or his authorised representative, his advocate at Gudivada. The general contention that one of the partners can be served as a representative ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction against the order received by him in case he is aggrieved by it. The procedure adopted by the AAC is illegal and erroneous. That apart, the stand taken by the department in this regard is also violative of the rules of natural justice. The person who prefers an appeal before the AAC must know what had happened to his appeal. If anything is needed with regard to the appeal he must be informed of the same. The service of the appellate order on a wrong person or on a person who has no interest in the subject-matter of the appeal could be nugatory and in any event it does not serve any purpose. The writ petitioner was certainly not aware of the passing of the order by the AAC against the firm, though dissolved. The sixty days period of l....