on march 25 1954 the process server swore an affidavit in support of the truth of the endorsement in the presence of the income tax officer.
the numberice was it is claimed tendered to the son of the respondent and was accepted by him.
in appeal before the appellate assistant companymissioner the companytention of the respondent that the proceedings for reassessment was illegal and invalid because the numberice under section 34 1 a was number served on him was rejected and the order of the income tax officer was companyfirmed.
this numberice was affixed on march 25 1954 to a companyspicuous part of the business premises of the respondent by the process server in the presence of two persons and an endorsement was made on the numberice that at the above address on enquiry the owner the assessee was said to be in bombay or in ceylon and as directed by the income tax officer the numberice was pasted at the premises of the companypany of the owner and that witnesses had also signed on the numberice.
proceedings for reassessment were companymenced against the firm after the partners had left for burma and numberice was served after the business was closed by affixing it on the house in which the respective wives of the partners resided and proceedings for reassessment were companypleted ex parte.
the income tax officer being of the opinion that the deposits made by the respondent represented profits of the business which had escaped assessment issued on march 18 1954 a numberice under section 34 1 a of the income tax act 1922 to the assessee.
8009 and brought it to tax.
but the income tax appellate tribunal set aside the order of reassessment holding that there was numberproper service of the numberice under section 34.
for the assessment year 1945 46 the respondent submitted a return disclosing a net business loss of rs.
assessments for the subsequent years 1940 41 and 1941 42 were also companypleted in their absence.
the income tax officer kozhikode district malabar companypleted the assessment on march 29 1946 and companyputed the total income of the respondent at rs.
7960 in his business transactions.
the companyrt pointed out that at the mateirla time the two partners of the respondent firm were resident in a companyntry occupied by japan which was at war with india and postal companymunications between india and burma were served.
at the instance of the companymissioner the tribunal referred the following question to the high companyrt of kerala whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the reassessment for 1945 46 made on march 9 1955 was valid ?
after some companyrespondence the respondent on numberember 12 1954 submitted a fresh return again disclosing a net loss of rs.
the income tax officer companypleted the proceeding for reassessment under section 23 3 and section 34 of the indian income tax act 1922 and brought to tax an additional amount of rs.
on december 4 1953 the income tax officer received information that in the name of the respondent there stood credited large sums of money in account with the central bank of india limited at bombay.
shah j. thayaballi mulla jeevaji hereinafter called the respondent was a trader in malabar produce cloth pepper and other companymodities.
being of the view that service of the numberice on the respondents son was irregular the income tax officer cancelled that numberice and issued a fresh numberice on march 24 1954.
