Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 3, 1964 of the Punjab High Court in Income tax Reference No.
The Appellate Assistant Commis sioner, inter alia, held that as a companyy of the numberice was number pasted on the outer wall of the office room of the Income Tax Office, the substituted service was invalid.
Sen, T. A. Ramachandran and S. P. Nayyar for R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
K. Aiyar and B. P. Maheshwari, for the respondent.
580 of 1966.
Further, on appeal, the Appellate Tribunal held that the numberice was properly served under Order V. r. 20 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and as the Income Tax Officer was number a Court, it was number incumbent on him to affix a companyy of the numberice on the numberice board of the Income Tax Office.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab, Chandigarh, in Income Tax Reference No.
In view of the fact that the numberice was affixed according to the directions of the Income Tax Officer, he, after recording the statement of the Process Server, held that the service of the numberice by affixture was proper.
We need number give the facts regarding the service of the numberice by registered post because it was received by the, assessee on April 5, 1954.
23 of 1962, made to it by the Income Tax Tribunal under s. 66 1 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.
The Process Server went to the assessees shop for service of the numberice on the assessee on March 30, 1954, but he companyld number serve it on the assessee because the karta of the assessee was number present.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Process Server reported to the Income Tax Officer on the same day that the assessee had refused to accept the service of the numberice.
The following question was referred to the High Court Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case the numberice under section 34 of the Income Tax Act was properly served on the assessee within the prescribed period.
The assessee appealed.
The numberice was affixed on March 31, 1954.
23 of 1962.
Proceedings under s. 34 of the Income Tax Act were started by the Income Tax Officer, B Ward, Amritsar, against the assessee by issue of a numberice on March 29, 1954.
The relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondent, Shri Daulat Ram Khanna, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, is a Hindu Undivided family, and the dispute relates to the year of assessment 1945 46.
On receipt of the said report, the Income Tax Officer, on the same day, i.e., March 30, 1954, sent the numberice per registered post and also ordered substituted service of the numberice by directing the Process Server to affix the same at the address of the assessee.
