S. 254 r.w. R. 35: Though the assessee can be represented before the ITAT by an authorized representative, the order has to be served upon the assessee directly. A service of the order upon the authorized representative is not good service

(i) The assessee is permitted to be represented in any proceedings before any Income Tax Authorities or the Appellate Tribunal by an authorised representative, which would include Chartered Accountant or a legal practitioner who is 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 form of Section 254, intention of the Legislature can be clearly discerned that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal shall be communicated to the assessee and to the Principal Commissioner/Revenue.

(ii) Sub-section (3) of Section 254 has permitted a copy of the order to be served upon the authorised representative of the assessee but has specifically stipulated that the copy of the order shall be sent to the “assessee”, who is permitted to file an appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal to the High Court.

(iii) Even Rule 35 cast a mandate on the Tribunal, to communicate the order, after it is signed, to the assessee and to the Commissioner and by use of the word “cause it to be” which clearly imply that the Tribunal shall ensure the communication of the order to the assessee by any mode of communication, the legislative intent is evidently clear. Thus, the statutory scheme cast a burden upon the Tribunal to ensure that the assessee is made aware of the order so that within 120 days as prescribed, he can file an appeal before the High Court.

[Sultanpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank v/s. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax in Income Tax Appeal Defective No.221 of 2005 dated 29.01.2010, Nandram Hunatram v/s. Commissioner of Income-tax [1959] 37 ITR 500 and Director of Income-tax (international
Taxation) v. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd [2018] 407 ITR 129 referred]