9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (3) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the assessee requested the Income-tax Officer to reopen the case under section 27 of the Income-tax Act, but this request was not granted. The following chronological resume was given by the Tribunal: 23-3-1956 : Notice under section 34 issued. 28-3-1956 : Notice under section 34 not served in ordinary course, but by affixture in the presence of Inspector. 3-1-195 : Notice under section 22(4) issued for 21-1-57. 15-1-1957 : Notice under section 22(4) not served in ordinary course, but by affixture on 15-1-57 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led an application before the Income-tax Officer on 27th of October, 1958, praying that the assessment which had already been completed under section 23, sub-section (4), of the Income-tax Act, might be reopened. His application was rejected as time-barred. It was also stated that proceedings under section 34 were initiated with the approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax and notice under section 34 was served by affixture on 28th of March, 1956. Later on, notices under section 2(4) were served by affixture but nobody attended. The application under section 27 was consequently rejected. An appeal was filed against this order of the Income-tax Officer, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner declined to interfere in appeal holding tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the service of the notice under Order V, rule 20, of the Code of Civil Procedure, had been validly made. The Tribunal held that as a valid service had been effected on 29th of March, 1957, the application under section 27 filed on 27th of October, 1958, was beyond the period allowed, and, therefore, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified to refuse to reopen the case. The short question before us is whether the provisions of Order V, rule 20, of the Code of Civil Procedure, have been complied with in this case. We cannot go into the question whether the decision to serve notice under that provision was rightly arrived at or not. Order V, rule 20, runs as under: (1) Where the court is satisfied that there is reason to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 20. According to the learned counsel, the words or in such other manner as the court thinks fit , occurring in rule 20, sub-rule (1), gives sufficient discretion to the court not to comply with the first condition as to affixing of summons upon some conspicuous place in the court-house. This, to my mind, is not a correct reading of rule 20. What it means is that the summons must be affixed in the court-house. In addition to that, it should be affixed either at the residence of the person sought to be served or in such other manner as the court thinks fit. The last requirement is substitutive of the penultimate requirement but is supplemental to the provision requiring the affixation of the summons at the court-house. A decision reporte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
