sg 1/3 itr67-00.doc IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 67 OF 2000 WITH INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 100 OF 2000 Naik Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. Applicant. v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur .. Respondent. . Mr. Rohan Deshpande, i/b. Mihir Naniwadekar, for Applicant. CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA, & S.C. GUPTE, JJ. DATE : 29 MARCH, 2017. P.C: . These two References under Section 256(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961, relate to Assessment Year 1991 92. 2. None appears for Respondent Revenue. We find that no affidavit of service of References being served upon Respondent Revenue has been filed. Thus we were inclined to return References un answered in view of Rule 658 of Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules. 3. However, Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for Applicant, submitted that in facts of this case, Respondent Revenue should be deemed to have had constructive notice of these 1 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2017 09:20:43 ::: sg 2/3 itr67-00.doc References. basis of above submission is that Respondent Revenue at one stage, i.e. on 18 November 2016, were represented by Counsel. However, we find that there is no vakalatnama filed on behalf of Revenue authorising any Advocate to appear for it in these two References. In absence of vakalatnama authorising Advocate to appear, no Advocate has right of audience to represent client before this Court. Consequently, Respondent Revenue cannot be deemed to have had constructive notice of these References in absence of it having authorised any Advocate to appear on its behalf in these two References. In above view, it is not open to assume that References have been served by Applicant Assessee upon Respondent Revenue. 4. In terms of Rule 658 of Bombay High Court (Original Side ) Rules, party, at whose instance References have been made, (in this case Applicant Assessee) is required to take all steps to bring References to final conclusion and for that purpose, shall serve notice upon opposite party within period of two months from receipt of References by High Court from Tribunal. Applicant Assessee has admittedly not served these References upon Respondent Revenue. It, therefore, appears that Applicant Assessee was not interested in pursuing these References. Merely because References have now come up on board almost sixteen years after being filed, Applicant Assessee is seeking to revive its interest in matter by pleading constructive notice. In facts of this case, there is no notice of References to Revenue, constructive or otherwise. 5. Therefore, we hold that Applicant Assessee is not 2 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2017 09:20:43 ::: sg 3/3 itr67-00.doc interested in prosecuting References as they have not been served upon Revenue. 6. In above view, both these References are returned unanswered. 7. References disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs. (S.C. GUPTE,J.) (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) 3 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2017 09:20:43 ::: NaikSeaFoodsPvt.Ltd. v. CommissionerofIncome-tax,Kolhapur