Substituted service by affixture requires proof of evasion or of ordinary service; mere absence is insufficient.

Service of a section 148 notice by affixture under Order V Rule 20 CPC is permissible only where there is material showing that the assessee is avoiding service or that ordinary service cannot be effected. A mere postal endorsement that the addressee had gone out, without evidence of evasion or refusal to accept notice, is insufficient to justify substituted service. On the stated facts, the notice was not validly served and the reassessment based on that service was invalid; the addition sustained in appeal could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was validly served by affixture under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the reassessment made on that basis was valid.

Analysis: Service by affixture under Order V Rule 20 is permissible only when there is material leading to the belief that the person is keeping out of the way to avoid service or that service in the ordinary course cannot be effected. Mere return of the registered notice with an endorsement that the addressee had gone out, without any material showing evasion or refusal to accept service, was held insufficient to justify substituted service. The facts were distinguished from the cited Supreme Court decision because there was no report of refusal to accept notice in the present case.

Conclusion: The notice under section 148 was not validly served, the reassessment was invalid, and the addition sustained in appeal could not stand.

---