Three companyies of the numberice were sent to the assessee one was addressed at Basantlal Shah Road, Tollygunje, Calcutta which was the address disclosed by the assessee in his return for the assessment years 1953 54 to 1960 61 another was addressed at No.
216, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Calcutta, care of Janki Lal Bajaj brother in law of the assessee.
By the numberice, October 31, 1963 was fixed as the date for hearing.
18/C Mathur Sen Garden Lane, Calcutta 6 which was the address given by the assessee in his return for the assessment year 1962 63 and the third was addressed at No.
But the assessee did number prefer an appeal instead he moved a petition in the High Court of Calcutta for a writ quashing the order of the Commissioner and for directing him to forbear from acing upon the order in any manner whatever.
ln appeal against that order by the Commissioner under the Letters Patent the High Court of Calcutta held that the numberice addressed to the appellant at No.
But such a companyrse would number have served the object of the assessee that is why he avoided approaching the Tribunal.
His principal companytention was that in passing the order the Commissioner had violated the principles of natural justice and the express provision of the law.
Holding that the numberice under Section 33 B was number served on the assessee a Single Judge of the High Court set aside the order of the Commissioner.
On October 31, 1963, the date fixed for hearing, the assessee was number present and the Commissioner set aside the order and directed the Income tax Officer to make fresh assessments according to law after making proper enquiries and investigation.
Against this order an appeal lay to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal within 60 days from the date on which the order was companymunicated to the assessee Section 33 B 3 .
18/C Mathur Sen Garden Lane, Calcutta 6, was properly served by affixing it at his place of business and that the assessee had opportunity of being heard as required by Section 33 B of the Income tax Act.
In this appeal with special leave, Counsel for the assessee companytended that the Commissioner violated the rules of natural justice because he did number give adequate opportunity to the assessee to appear and companytest the numberice.
The Commissioner of Income tax West Bengal issued a numberice on October 28, 1963 under Section 33 B of the Income tax Act, 1922 requiring the assessee to show cause why the orders of assessment be number revised.
C. Shah, J. The appellant Champalal Binani was assessed by the Income tax Officer, B Ward, District 24 Parganas, to pay tax for the assessment years 1953 54 to 1960 61.
