The Authorised representative   contended before the Tribunal that the notice u/s. 143(2) was not served on the partners of the assessee firm as is the requirement under the law. He submitted that the service of notice on Shri Harish C. Pawar, Manager of the assessee did not tantamount to a valid service and hence the assessment be quashed. Departmental representative placed on record a copy of order sheet of the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal noticed that entry dated 13-08-2012 of the assessment proceedings notes that Shri D.P. Lunawat, Advocate attended on behalf of the assessee. This order sheet entry further records that office copy of notice u/s. 143(2) was shown to Shri D.P. Lunawat, duly signed by the assessee firm and received by Shri Harish C. Pawar, Manager. It goes on to state that the ld. AR was asked if he still had any objection to the service of notice, to which Shri Harish C. Pawar stated that ‘he has no objection’.  Accordingly the Tribunal held that if the assessee objects to the AO’s jurisdiction but his Authorised Representative later conveys no-objection, it means that the assessee has withdrawn his objection. Submission that the AR had no authority to convey no-objection and cannot bind the assessee is not acceptable. Once the assessee empowers his Authorised representative to appear before authorities, all of the Authorised representative  concessions are binding on the assessee .Accordingly Challenge to the assessment on the basis that there was valid service is held to be not valid. (Himalayan Cooperative   Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh (2015) 7 SCC 373 distinguished). (ITA No. 1448/Pun/2014, dt. 28.11.2018)(AY. 2010-11)