Statutory presumption of service by registered post stands unless rebutted, even if delivery is taken by a third person.

Service of a notice sent by registered post is presumed under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 where the notice is properly addressed, prepaid and posted, and that presumption is displaced only by contrary proof. Physical receipt by a person other than the addressee, including a brother without authority to accept delivery, does not by itself invalidate service. The decisive question is whether the statutory presumption of due service has been rebutted on the facts. The Tribunal erred by treating the identity of the recipient as conclusive without addressing the presumption or finding rebuttal.

---

---

Issues: Whether service of a notice sent by registered post under the Income-tax Act can be held insufficient merely because it was delivered to a brother of the assessee who had no authority to receive it, without considering the statutory presumption of service and whether that presumption was rebutted.

Analysis: Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 raises a presumption that service is effected where a document is properly addressed, prepaid and posted by registered post, and that presumption may be displaced only by contrary proof. The mere fact that the registered letter was physically received by a person other than the addressee, and even one without authority to accept delivery, does not by itself negative service in law. The issue therefore was not whether the notice reached the assessee through an authorised recipient only, but whether the facts found were enough to rebut the presumption of due service. The Tribunal had treated the identity of the recipient as decisive and had not addressed the statutory presumption or the question of rebuttal.

Conclusion: The answer was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The Tribunal was not justified in holding the service insufficient merely because the notice was received by the assessee's brother, without examining the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and without finding that the presumption had been rebutted.

Final Conclusion: The legal sufficiency of service by registered post cannot be negatived solely by proof that delivery was taken by a third person; the statutory presumption must first be considered and displaced by evidence before service can be held invalid.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice sent by registered post is presumed to have been duly served under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and service is not invalid merely because delivery was taken by a person other than the addressee unless the presumption of service is rebutted on the facts.

---