1984 (9) TMI 268

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e the Tribunal affirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner (judicial) holding that the appeal was belatedly filed by the assessee and as no condonation application was given, the appeal was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner (judicial). Dismissal of the appeal in limine was confirmed by the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the question for consideration was: whether the report of the proc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ommissioner of Income-tax v. Ramendra Nath Ghosh [1971] 82 ITR 888 (SC). The Honourable Supreme Court in this authority while considering the provisions of rule 17, Order V, of the Code of Civil Procedure, observed: "The report of the serving officer does not mention the names and addresses of the persons who identified the place of business of the assessees. That officer does not mention in his .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat the substituted service in the absence of obtaining witnesses was invalid. There is nothing on record to show that the case of the assessee that it came to know about the order only when the recovery proceedings were initiated, is false. Therefore, the appeal filed before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) could not be said to be barred by limitation. I, therefore, set aside the order of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X