Case Details

Citation(s)
1958 SLG 262 1958 SLD 262 (1958) 33 ITR 123

I.T.C.M.P. No. 1878 OF 1956 AND W.P. No. 193 OF 1957, SEPTEMBER 13, 1957
SUBBA RAO, C.J. AND, JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.
K. Mangachari for the Petitioner. V. Vedantachari for the
Respondent

Bh. Satyanarayanamurthi

v.

Law:

Section:

Section 288 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 61 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Authorised representative - Appearance by - Tribunal dismissed application filed by applicant/assessee under section 66(1) of 1922 Act on ground that assessee's agent was not empowered to sign application on behalf of assessee - On instant application under section 66(2) of 1922 Act, assessee relied upon general power of attorney given by him to his agent in support of his contention that he was person authorised by him in writing to attend his business before Tribunal - In said power of attorney, assessee had authorised his agent to appear on his behalf in civil, criminal and revenue courts - Whether in either ordinary parlance or legal sense, Tribunal can not be held to be a civil, criminal or revenue court - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, assessee did not authorise his agent to act for him before Tribunal - Held, yes - Whether, consequently, Tribunal rightly dismissed application filed by agent on behalf of assessee - Held, yes FACTS The Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the applicant under section 66(1) of 1922 Act on the ground that under the rules the application must be signed by the applicant and that the agent was not empowered to sign on behalf of the principal. The Tribunal was also inclined to hold that the agent, who signed the application, was not duly authorised by the assessee to take proceedings before the Tribunal. On application under section 66(2) of 1922 Act : HELD The only question in instant case was whether the person who signed the application was a person authorised by the assessee in writing in that behalf. The assessee relied upon the general power of attorney given by him to his agent in support of his contention that he was the person authorised by him in writing to attend to his business before the Tribunal. It is a well-settled principle that a power of attorney should be strictly construed. The short question was, whether the assessee intended to include the Tribunal within the meaning of the words "Courts, civil, Criminal, revenue". The assessee in the power of attorney made distinction between courts and other…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492