JAYALAKSHMI CLOTH STORES Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioner-firm represented by its managing partner gives rise to a short but important question of law as to whether the order passed by the AAC should be served on the party who preferred the appeal on behalf of the firm or on any one of the erstwhile partners of the dissolved firm.

(2.) M/s. Jayalakshmi 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 same. Sri Subba Rao did not take any action in this regard. When the petitioner approached Sri Subba Rao with a request to hand over the original appellate orders received by him to enable him to take necessary steps, the said orders were handed over to the petitioner on October 2, 1977, with great difficulty. Thereafter appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, were filed on October 10, 1977, accompanied by an application to condone the delay in filing the appeals for the reasons stated therein. A supplementary affidavit was also filed giving more details and particulars. However, the Tribunal by its order dated 30th June, 1978, rejected the appeals I.T.A. Nos. 1249 and 1250 of 1977-78 on the ground that they were barred by limitation. Hence, this writ petition to quash the orders of the Tribunal on the ground that the appeals were filed within sixty days from the date of knowledge of the orders of the AAC to the writ petitioner, that the AAC has a statutory duty and obligation to serve the appellate orders on the petitioner who had filed the appeals or on his authorised representative, and that instead, they have been served upon Sri A. Subba Rao, an erstwhile partner of the dissolved firm, who was not evincing any interest in the matter.

(3.) 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 be immediately before its dissolution. This provision would apply in so far as the service of notices under the I.T. Act is concerned with regard to the income of the firm or association being determined by the ITO. No doubt, this provision is under Chap. XXIII which is described as " Miscel- laneous". This does not, in our view, apply to the case of an appeal before the AAC or the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.