NEELAM AJIT PHATARPEKAR v. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)
Discusses statutory interpretation, condonation of delay, and the responsibilities of tribunals regarding communication of orders to parties.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-GOA:1086-DB
Decision Date: 23-06-2025
List of Laws
The Income Tax Act, 1961; Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Chartered Accountants Act, 1949; Information Technology Act, 2000
- The Income Tax Act, 1961: The judgment discusses Section 260(A), which pertains to appeals to the High Court from orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal. It specifies that such appeals must be filed within 120 days. Sub-section (2A) allows for admission of appeals after the 120-day period if the High Court is satisfied with the cause for the delay. The judgment also refers to Section 254, concerning orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal, particularly sub-section (3), which mandates sending a copy of any orders passed under this section to the assessee and the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. Section 282, relating to the service of notice generally, is invoked, indicating two modes of service: by post or as if it were a summons issued by a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 288, titled "Appearance by authorised representative," is discussed, outlining who can represent an assessee before income-tax authorities or the Appellate Tribunal. Sub-section (2) defines "authorised representative," including accountants.
- Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963: Rule 35 is discussed, stating that the Tribunal shall, after the order is signed, cause it to be communicated to the assessee and to the Commissioner. The judgment emphasizes that this rule makes it imperative for the Tribunal to ensure communication of the order to the assessee.
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The judgment refers to Order 5 Rule 12 of the CPC, which concerns service on a defendant or their agent. The court finds its invocation misplaced in this context, as it applies to situations where an agent is specifically empowered to accept service, which is not the case with a Chartered Accountant acting as an authorised representative. Order 3, dealing with recognized agents and pleaders, is also mentioned. Rule 2 defines recognized agents, and Rule 3 specifies how processes are served on them.
- Chartered Accountants Act, 1949: Section 2(1)(b) is referenced indirectly through the explanation appended to Section 288 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, clarifying that "accountant" means a chartered accountant as defined in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 who hold a valid certificate of practice under sub-section (1) of section 6 of that Act.
- Information Technology Act, 2000: The judgment mentions Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in the context of Section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as one of the permissible modes of service of notice/summons/requisition or order.
🔒 For Members Only