Held  that the form under the Rules prescribed verification which permitted only the assessee to sign form 35A. Rule 4(1) of the Rules provides that the objections may be filed in person or through an agent. Rule 4(1) does not deal with the verification of form 35A but merely with who shall file the form. There is a distinction between the person who files the form and the person who verifies it. The form is required to be verified by the assessee. In terms of rule 2(vi) of the Rules, as the term assesseehas not been defined in the Rules, its definition would be from section 2(7) of the Act. Section 2(7) defines the term assessee to mean a person from whom any tax or any other sum of money is payable under the Act and to include certain specified categories of persons. Person, in turn, is defined in section 2(31) of the Act. Looking to the various categories of the definition of the term person, it emerged that the authorised representative is  not entitled to sign and verify form 35A. A chartered accountant or an advocate cannot declare what is stated in form 35A to be true to the best of his information and belief as he cannot be privy to information about the truthfulness of facts stated in that form. The authority based on which the advocate verified form 35A is not produced. The assessee had failed to show that the advocate was any way connected and authorised to verify the form. Thus, the advocate who signed the form was neither an assessee nor an agent. The verification of the form by the advocate being an authorised representative of the assessee is  not proper. However failure to give an opportunity to take remedial action.  Matter remanded for filing a fresh objections.   (AY. 2014-15, 2015-16)