Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a notice under section 34 of the Income-tax Act was properly served within the prescribed period when substituted service was ordered by affixture without affixing a copy on the notice board of the income-tax office.
Analysis: Section 63 of the Income-tax Act permits service of a notice as if it were a summons under the Code of Civil Procedure. On the interpretation of Order V, rule 20(1), the prescribed mode of affixture is one permissible method, but the closing words also confer discretion on the court to adopt another manner of service, provided it is reasonably calculated to give notice to the person to be served. The omission of the word 'also' from the concluding part of the rule was treated as significant, and authorities dealing with different provisions were held distinguishable.
Conclusion: The substituted service was valid, the notice was properly served, and the question was answered in the affirmative against the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing procedural rule expressly authorises service 'in such other manner as the court thinks fit', the court has discretion to direct an alternative mode of service that is reasonably calculated to give notice, and such service is valid even if the specific dual-affixture method is not followed.