Summary
The assessee company sought recall of an ex parte Supreme Court judgment, asserting lack of service at its registered office. Notice had been accepted by its chartered accountant, who held a power of attorney for the assessment proceedings. The Court found service valid and the explanations for non-appearance unconvincing, and dismissed recall.
Issues
- Whether service on the company’s authorised chartered accountant and power-of-attorney holder was sufficient.
- Whether the explanations for non-appearance justified recall of the judgment.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(35), Income-tax Act, 1961The definition of principal officer includes an agent; the authorised power-of-attorney holder qualified as the company’s agent for service in this case. (¶ 12)
Held
- The chartered accountant admittedly held a power of attorney for the relevant assessment year and was the company’s agent. Notice could be served on him; absence of service at the later registered-office address did not invalidate the service effected here. (¶¶ 8, 12, 14)
- The claim that Supreme Court notice was mistaken for income-tax return papers lacked credibility. Cataract surgery occurred later, leaving sufficient time to inform the company, and the representative continued appearing for it and related concerns before tax authorities in the intervening period. (¶ 13)
- Repeated opportunities had been provided after valid service. The company allowed the appeal to proceed ex parte and established no credible or cogent ground to recall the resulting judgment. (¶¶ 11, 14, 15)
Result
Recall application dismissed without costs. The judgment of 5 March 2019 remained undisturbed; the tax merits were not reconsidered in this application.