1993 (4) TMI 53 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Authority of the person accepting the notice on behalf of the assessee.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements for serving notice.

Summary:

1. Validity of Service of Notice u/s 143(2):
The court examined whether the service of notice u/s 143(2) was valid. The notice was served on Som Nath, who was neither a family member nor a duly authorized agent of the assessee. The court emphasized that notice must be served in accordance with section 282 of the Act, which aligns with the procedures under the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Authority of the Person Accepting the Notice:
The court scrutinized whether Som Nath had the authority to accept the notice on behalf of the assessee. It was established that Som Nath had previously accepted notices for the assessee but was not a duly authorized agent as per Order III, rule 6, Civil Procedure Code. The court cited various precedents, including C. N. Nataraj v. ITO and Addl. CIT v. Prem Kumar Rastogi, to support the requirement of a written instrument for authorization.

3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements:
The court detailed the procedural requirements for serving notice, including personal service, service by post, and substituted service under Order V, Civil Procedure Code. It was found that the notice served on Som Nath did not comply with these requirements. The court highlighted that serious consequences follow from such notices, necessitating strict adherence to prescribed procedures.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the notice served on Som Nath was invalid as he was not a duly authorized agent. Consequently, the assessment order based on this notice was also invalid. The reference was answered in the negative, indicating that the service of notice u/s 143(2) was not valid.