REPORTABLE IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION M.A. No. 814 of 2019 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2463 OF 2019 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) 1 Appellant Versus NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. Respondent JUDGMENT INDU MALHOTRA, J. 1. present Application has been filed for Re call of Judgment dated 05.03.2019 passed by this Court in C.A. No. 2463 of 2019, on ground that Applicant Company was not served with Notice of SLP at Signature Not Verified registered office of Company, nor was copy of SLP Digitally signed by NEELAM GULATI Date: 2019.10.25 17:08:12 IST Reason: 1 served on Applicant Company. Consequentially, since Judgment was passed ex parte, Applicants prayed for Re call of Judgment and de novo hearing. 2. Applicants submit that Court Notices were sent to earlier registered office address of Applicant Company i.e. at 310, 3rd Floor, B Block, International Trade Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi. However, on 19.05.2014, Applicant Company changed its registered office to 211, Somdutt Chambers II, 9, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066. Thereafter, on 23.01.2019, registered office was again changed to 1205, Cabine No. 1, 89 Hemkunt Chambers, Nehru Place, New Delhi. 3. Applicants submit that they learnt of Judgment dated 05.03.2019 passed by this Court from news clipping published in Economic Times on 07.03.2019. Subsequently, Application for re call was filed on 12.03.2019. 2 4. Applicant Company submits that on inspection of court record, they learnt that Affidavit of dasti service filed by Revenue Department on 19.12.2018, showed acknowledgment receipt by Mr. Sanjeeva Narayan, Chartered Accountant of Applicant Company on 13.12.2018. 5. Applicant Company placed on record Affidavit of Mr. Sanjeev Narayan Chartered Accountant, wherein he has stated that he was authorized representative of Respondent Company before Income Tax Authorities but was not engaged before High Court, or Supreme Court. Chartered Accountant further submits that he had received service on 13.12.2018 from one of Inspectors of Income Tax Department, but he bona fide believed that documents were some Income Tax Return documents from Income Tax Department. Chartered Accountant further submits that he was suffering from advanced stage of cataract, and had 3 undergone surgery in both eyes on 04.01.2019 and 23.01.2019 respectively. 6. Applicant Company during oral arguments submitted that Mr. Sanjeev Narayan Chartered Accountant was representing Applicant Company in all its cases, as also sister concerns including M/s. Tata Steel BSL Ltd. (earlier known as Bhushan Steel Ltd.) before Income Tax Authorities, and continues to represent Applicant Company even as on date. 7. This Court vide Order dated 19.08.2019, called for original record from Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Delhi High Court. In meanwhile, Department was granted time to file their objections. 8. Department in Counter Affidavit submitted that dasti Notice was duly served on Mr. Sanjeev Narayan at his office address, in his capacity as authorized representative of Applicant Company, who was holding Power of Attorney of Assessee Company for A.Y. 2009 10. Power of Attorney appoints all four partners 4 of firm i.e. Mr. Mohan Lal, Advocate, Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Chartered Accountant, Mr. Sanjeev Narayan, Chartered Accountant and Mr. Surender Kumar, FCA as their Counsel, and authorizes them to represent Applicant Company at all stages of proceedings. Power of Attorney executed by Applicant Company in favour of Mr. Sanjeev Narayan was placed on record. 9. It was further submitted on behalf of Revenue that even though Mr. Sanjeev Narayan has stated that he underwent cataract surgery on 04.01.2019 and 23.01.2019, this was much after Notice had been served on 13.12.2018. Hence, there was ample time for him to inform his clients of pendency of proceedings. 10. It was further submitted that Mr. Sanjeev Narayan had appeared before Tax Authorities after date of service on 13.12.2018, and prior to his surgery, to represent Applicant Company and its sister concerns on 14.12.2018, 21.12.2018, 28.12.2018 and 29.12.2018. In these circumstances it was pointed out that there was no merit in contention raised by Applicant 5 Company, and hence no ground was made out to Re call Judgment and Order dated 05.03.2019 passed by this Court. 11. We have heard learned Counsel for parties and perused record. This Court in C.A. No. 2463 of 2019, issued Notice to Assessee Applicant vide Order dated 12.11.2018. Since dasti service was effected on 13.12.2018 on Applicant Company, matter was listed on 02.01.2019. However, none appeared on behalf of Applicant Company. Court further adjourned matter by two weeks, and posted case on 18.01.2019, when it was ordered that in case Applicant Company chooses not to enter appearance, matter would be proceeded ex parte. matter was, thereafter, listed on 23.01.2019, when following Order was passed: Notice was issued in matter on 12.11.2018, Office report dated 22.12.2018 indicated that notice was served upon sole Respondent but none had entered appearance. By order dated 02.01.2019, last opportunity was given to Respondent and it was indicated that if Respondent chose not to 6 enter appearance, matter would be disposed of ex parte. Even then none has entered appearance. Having gone through matter, we give one more opportunity to Respondent to enter appearance and make submissions with respect to merits of matter. If Respondent still chooses not to appear, matter shall definitely be decided ex parte. (emphasis supplied) Applicant Company remained unrepresented despite service on its authorised representative, on 31.01.2019, and on 05.02.2019, when matter was taken up for final hearing, and judgment was reserved. 12. During oral hearing on Re call Application, submission was made by Counsel for Applicant Company that Mr. Sanjeev Narayan was not principal officer of Applicant Company, and hence service could not have been effected upon him. Section 2(35) defines principal officer as follows : 2. In this Act, unless context otherwise requires, (35) "principal officer", used with reference to local authority or company or any other public body or any association of persons or anybody of individuals, means (a) secretary, treasurer, manager or agent of authority, company, association or body, or 7 (b) any person connected with management or administration of local authority, company, association or body upon whom Assessing Officer has served notice of his intention of treating him as principal officer thereof ; (emphasis supplied) term agent would certainly include power of attorney holder. In State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nehata1 this Court held that : grant of power of attorney is essentially governed by Chapter X of Contract Act. By reason of deed of power of attorney, agent is formally appointed to act for principal in one transaction or series of transactions or to manage affairs of principal generally conferring necessary authority upon another person. deed of power of attorney is executed by principal in favour of agent. (emphasis supplied) Mr. Sanjeev Narayan admittedly being Power of Attorney holder of Applicant M/s. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2009 10 was agent of Assesse Company, and hence Notice could be served on him as agent of Assessee Company in this case. 13. ground taken by Mr. Sanjeev Narayan that even though Notice was served on 13.12.2018, he assumed that they 1 2005 (12) SCC 77. 8 were some Income Tax Return Documents lacks credibility. It is difficult to accept that envelope containing dasti Notice from this Court was considered to be some Income Tax Return documents . deponent does not at all disclose as to when envelope containing dasti Notice was ever opened. Furthermore, ground urged that Chartered Accountant was suffering from advanced stage of cataract, and hence was constrained from informing his clients is again not worthy of credence. dasti Notice was admittedly served on him on 13.12.2018 at his office, which was much prior to his surgery which he states took place on 04.01.2019. Mr. Narayan had sufficient time to inform Applicant Company of proceedings, prior to his surgery. Furthermore, Mr. Narayan appeared before Income Tax Authorities to represent Applicant Company and its sister concerns on various dates prior to his surgery i.e. on 14.12.2018, 21.12.2018, 28.12.2018 and 29.12.2018. 9 14. Keeping in view above mentioned facts and circumstances, this Court is satisfied that Applicant Company was duly served through their authorized representative, and were provided sufficient opportunities to appear before this Court, and contest matter. Applicant Company chose to let matter proceed ex parte. grounds for Re call of Judgment are devoid of any merit whatsoever. 15. Applicant Company having failed to make out any credible or cogent ground for Re call of judgment dated 05.03.2019, Application for Re call is dismissed with no order as to costs. .J. (UDAY UMESH LALIT) .. J. (INDU MALHOTRA) New Delhi, October 25, 2019 10 Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) -1 v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd