Law:

Section:

Section 148, read with section 282 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 34 read with section 63 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] and Order V, rule 20(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Income escaping assessment - Issue of notice for - Assessment year 1945-46 - ITO on refusal of assessee to accept service of notice issued under section 34 of Act 1922, ordered substituted service of said notice by affixing it at address of assessee - Whether under section 63 of Act 1922 notice may be served as if it were summons issued by Court under Order V, rule 20(1) and discretion is granted to Court to see that unnecessary steps are not taken and service is effected in most expeditious and best manner - Held, yes - Whether in circumstances of case, notice issued under section 34 of Act 1922 was properly served on assessee - Held, yes FACTS The respondent, assessee was a HUF. Proceedings under section 34 of Act 1922 were started by the ITO, against the assessee by issue of a notice on 29-3-1954. The process-server went to the assessee's shop for service of the notice on the assessee on 30-3-1954, but he could not serve it on the assessee because the karta of the assessee was not present. The process-server reported to the ITO on the same day that the assessee had refused to accept the service of the notice. On receipt of the said report, the ITO, on the same day, sent the notice per registered post and also ordered substituted service of the notice by directing the process-server to affix the same at the address of the assessee. The notice was affixed on 31-3-1954. The service of the notice by registered post was received by the assessee on 5-4-1954. In view of the fact that the notice was affixed according to the directions of the ITO, he, after recording the statement of the process-server, held that the service of the notice by affixture was proper. The assessee appealed against the order ITO. The AAC, inter alia, held that as a copy of the notice was not pasted on the outer wall of the office room of the ITO, the substituted service was invalid. Further, on appeal, the appellate Tribunal held that the notice was properly served under Order V,…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492