1980 (2) TMI 61

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed. Aggrieved, the assessee went up to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that Sri Rastogi was not an authorised agent of the assessee. Service on him was immaterial. In fact, the assessee came to know of the passing of the assessment order later and he applied to obtain a copy on 25th February, 1969, and of the demand notice on 8th April, 1969. So, the appeal was filed within time. The further finding of the AAC that the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by the demand notice was held not to vitiate the appeal. The Tribunal held that at the worst it was an irregularity. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order of the AAC and directed him to dispose of the appeal on merits. The Tribunal has, at the instance ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the notices issued to the assessee were properly addressed. The only question is whether the service of the notice on Sri R. K. Rastogi was valid. It is not disputed that Sri R. K. Rastogi was not a member of the assessee-HUF. The Tribunal found that Sri Rastogi was not an authorised agent of the assessee- HUF. This finding also has not been questioned. Mr. Gulati for the revenue stressed that in the past notices used to be served on Sri R. K. Rastogi and the assessee never took any objection that the service of notices on Sri Rastogi was improper or invalid. That may be so, but that fact by itself shall not make Sri Rastogi an authorised or recognised agent of the HUF. Under sub-s. (1) of s. 282 a notice may either be sent by post or....