Notice can be served on Chartered Accountant as agent of assessee when CA holds Power of Attorney of the Company for the relevant AY – Supreme Court
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3178 (2019) (10) SC
Important case law relied upon by the parties:
State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nehata 2005 (12) SCC 77
In The instant case, the assessee company had filed an application for recalling of the Judgment passed ex-parte by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground that the applicant company was not served with the notice of the SLP at the registered office, nor copy of the SLP was served.
The company submitted that the Supreme Court Notices were sent to the earlier registered office address of the company whereas the company had changed its registered office two times thereafter.
According to the applicant company, it learnt of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from a news clipping published in the newspaper.
According to the applicant, the dasti notice was served by the Income Tax Department on the Chartered Accountant (CA) of the company who on affidavit deposed that he was the authorized representative of the company before the Income Tax Authorities only but was not engaged before the High Court, or the Supreme Court.
The CA further submitted that the notice was served on him by the Income Tax Inspector but he bona fide believed that the documents were some Income Tax Return documents from Income Tax Department.
The applicant company also argued that the said Chartered Accountant was not the “principal officer” of the Applicant – Company, and hence service could not have been effected upon him.
The Income Tax Department in the Counter Affidavit submitted that the dasti notice was duly served on the chartered accountant at his office address, in his capacity as the authorized representative of the company, who was holding a Power of Attorney of the company for the relevant Assessment Year.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the CA admittedly being the Power of Attorney holder of the applicant company for the relevant A.Y., was the agent of the company within the meaning of section 2(35) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), and hence Notice could be served on him as the agent of the assessee – Company in this case.
Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the application for Recall.
Mere CBDT Instructions cannot absolve individuals of their obligation to explain the source and nature of their gold holdings, even…
Empanelment of General Observers for ICSI Examinations December 2026 ICSI has invited interested members to enroll as General Observers for…
ITAT answers some important and inter-related issues relating to deduction u/s 80IA In a recent judgment, ITAT has dealt with…
Carry forward of loss can not be denied for belated return, it is only the set off in subsequent year…
Where sales are duly recorded in books and VAT returns, to treat it bogus sales, AO must bringing cogent adverse…
Expenses to celebrate Diwali with staff creates a goodwill and, therefore amounts to expenses incurred for the purpose of business…