Rebuttable presumption of registered-post service upheld where a minor son accepted delivery as the assessee's agent.

Service of a notice sent by registered post raises only a rebuttable presumption of due service, not a conclusive one, and that presumption may be displaced by contrary proof. Delivery at the assessee's residence to a person capable of acting as the addressee's agent was treated as valid service. On the facts, the assessee's minor son lived with him, had ordinary intelligence, and had previously received notices on his behalf, so his signing of the postal acknowledgment did not vitiate service. A minor may, in proper circumstances, act as an agent for acceptance of delivery, and the notice was therefore validly served.

---

---

Issues: Whether service of a notice sent by registered post was vitiated because the postal acknowledgment was signed by the assessee's minor son without stating the name of the addressee.

Analysis: The presumption under the postal-service provision was held to be rebuttable and not conclusive. The Court read the provision as creating a presumption of due service unless the contrary is proved, and applied the same approach consistent with the rule in the Evidence Act on presumptions. It further held that delivery at the assessee's residence to a person acting as his agent was sufficient service. On the facts found, the son was living with the assessee, had ordinary intelligence, and had previously received notices on the assessee's behalf. The Court concluded that a minor, in proper circumstances, may act as an agent for acceptance of delivery.

Conclusion: The service of the notice was valid and was not vitiated by the son's signing of the acknowledgment.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice sent by registered post gives rise only to a rebuttable presumption of service, and delivery to a person who can act as the addressee's agent is valid service even if that person is a minor.

---