The Tribunal had served a copy of its order upon the Chartered Accountant who represented the assessee before the ITAT, but the order was not communicated to the assessee personally. The assessee contended that knowledge of the order was obtained only upon receipt of recovery notice in April 2024, where after certified copy was applied for and appeal was filed with delay of 40 days. The High Court held that under the statutory scheme of the Act read with Rule 35 of the ITAT Rules, the Tribunal is mandatorily required to communicate the order to the assessee, and mere service upon an authorised representative does not absolve such obligation unless the representative is specifically empowered to accept service. A Chartered Accountant acts only as an authorised representative and cannot be treated as a recognised agent within the meaning of Order 3 of the CPC in absence of specific authority to receive service. Service upon such representative therefore cannot be equated with service upon the assessee. Since the assessee established absence of knowledge of the order and acted promptly after becoming aware of it, the delay in filing appeal deserved to be condoned and the appeal was directed to be heard on merits; dissenting from Sultanpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jt. CIT(2011) 245 CTR 64 (All)(HC)  and following Nandram Hunatram v. CIT.(1959) 37 ITR 500 (Orissa) (HC) . (AY. 2009-10).