Allowing the appeals, the Court held that section 254(3) of the Act, along with rule 35 of the 1963 Rules, provides that after an order was passed, the Tribunal was to communicate the order to the assessee and there was no escape from this provision. The assessee was permitted to be represented in any proceedings before any income-tax authorities or the Tribunal by an authorised representative, which included a chartered accountant or a legal practitioner who was entitled to practice in any civil courts in India or even by a person related to the assessee in any manner. However, from the specific provision in the form of section 254, the intention of the Legislature could be clearly discerned that the decision of the Tribunal was to be communicated to the assessee and to the Principal Commissioner or Department. That the vakalatnama in favour of a counsel would authorise him to receive all documents on behalf of the assessee but in case of a chartered accountant, he could only act as an authorised representative. The invocation of Order 5, rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was completely misplaced as the provision invoked referred to the service on defendant in person or on his agent and as Order 5, rule 12 provide that wherever it was practicable, service had to be made on the defendant in person, unless he had an agent empowered to accept the service, in which case service on the agent was to be sufficient. Unless and until an agent was empowered by the assessee to accept service, the service would have to be effected on the assessee himself. Since the chartered accountant was not also authorised specifically to accept copy of the order, he could not be said to be a recognised agent of the assessee. That the copy of the order against which the appeal was preferred was received by the chartered accountant, who has filed his affidavit categorically stating that he was unable to recollect if the copies were given by him to the assessee or the legal heirs of her spouse in the year 2016. Since service upon the chartered accountant did not absolve the Tribunal of serving the copies of the order upon the assessee, who had adopted a specific stand that it was only upon receipt of the recovery notice the assessee gained knowledge about the order and thereafter preferred an application for certified copy of the order which was received on May 17, 2024 and the appeal was preferred with a delay of 40 days. The justification of the assessee that she was unaware of the order being passed on September 14, 2016 until April 2024 when she was served with the recovery notice for the assessment year 2009-2010, was convincing. The assessee had thereafter taken steps to institute the appeals against the order, which were filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 260A. As the assessee did not know of the passing of the order, and only on receipt of the certified copy of the order did she prefer the appeals, the appeals deserved to be decided on the merits by condoning the delay that had occurred in instituting the appeals.(AY. 2009-10)