GOPIRAM BHAGWANDAS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application on behalf of the petitioner under S. 66, Sub -S. (3), of the Indian IT Act praying for a direction to the Tribunal, Patna Branch, to treat his application under S. 66(1) of the Act as having been made within time. The circumstances which have given rise to the application are as follows. An appeal by the petitioner -assessee was heard by the Tribunal on the 25th March, 1955, and orders thereon were passed on the 31st of March, 1955. A copy of this order was sent to the assessee's lawyer, Mr. V. D. Narayan, and received by him on the 7th April, 1955. For some reason or other, the copy of this order was not despatched to the assessee who ultimately received it on the 22nd June, 1955. An application under S. 66(1) of the Act was then filed before the Tribunal on the 12th July, 1955, but the application was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by time.

(2.) IT has been contended by Mr. S.N. Dutta, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that, in view of the law provided in the various sections of the Act and the rules framed thereunder, the application was within time and the Tribunal wrongly decided the same to be barred. This submission appears to have considerable merit. Sec. 33 relates to appeals against orders of the AAC before the Tribunal. Sub -s.(3) of this section provides that an appeal to the Tribunal shall be in the prescribed form. That form may be found in the IT Manual, and a column of it requires a statement about the address to which notices may be sent to the appellant. The assessee filled up this column in the following manner : "M/s Gopiram Bhagwands, Post Office Dhanbad, District Manbhum". It is clear from this statement that the assessee wanted all notices in connection with the appeal to be sent to him and not to his lawyer or agent. In Basant Lal Ramjidas vs. CIT (1923) ILR 11 Pat 40, an application was made by an agent of an assessee without express authorisation in writing signed by the assessee himself, and it was held that it was not an application at all so as to entitle the assessee to a deduction of time on the basis of the application. The observations which were made in this connection by their Lordships are important. They said:

(3.) TRUE , there was an express authority conferred on the lawyer to apply for and take delivery of copies, but there is no indication anywhere in the power that he had been authorised to accept notices on behalf of the assessee, especially when the assessee had made it abundantly clear in his memorandum of appeal that all notices should be sent to his address at Dhanbad. There can be no doubt that service of notice is considered to be an important step according to the provisions of the Act.