Valid service of reassessment notice is jurisdictional; notice on an unauthorised Chartered Accountant cannot sustain reassessment.

Secondary evidence and affidavit cannot be used to prove an alleged power of attorney unless a proper statutory foundation for such evidence is first laid; on the facts, the Revenue's affidavit was not admitted and the power of attorney was not treated as proved. Service of notice under section 148 must be made on the assessee or an authorised recipient, because valid service is a condition precedent to reassessment; service on a Chartered Accountant who was not shown to be authorised for the relevant year was ineffective. Accordingly, the reassessment notices and ex parte assessment were stated to be unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Revenue could be permitted to prove the existence of an alleged power of attorney in favour of the Chartered Accountant by affidavit and secondary evidence; (ii) Whether service of notice under section 148 on the Chartered Accountant was valid and whether the reassessment and ex parte assessment could stand.

Issue (i): Whether the Revenue could be permitted to prove the existence of an alleged power of attorney in favour of the Chartered Accountant by affidavit and secondary evidence.

Analysis: The alleged power of attorney was claimed to be on the assessment record, but it was not found when the record was examined. The Court held that, in principle, existence of a document may be shown by primary or secondary evidence, but the Revenue failed to establish a basis for secondary evidence within the statutory framework. The Court further held that the affidavit sought to be introduced was not admissible in the circumstances presented, as the matter was being used to cure the Revenue's own evidentiary deficiency and no proper foundation for its reception had been laid.

Conclusion: The Revenue's affidavit was not admitted and the alleged power of attorney was not accepted as proved.

Issue (ii): Whether service of notice under section 148 on the Chartered Accountant was valid and whether the reassessment and ex parte assessment could stand.

Analysis: The Court held that notice under section 148 is a foundational notice and its valid service is a condition precedent to reassessment. It found, on the facts, that the Chartered Accountant had not been shown to be authorised to receive the notice for the relevant assessment year, and that mere prior appearance in other matters or subsequent knowledge could not substitute for valid service. The Court distinguished authorities relied on by the Revenue and followed the line of cases treating service on an unauthorised person as ineffective. Once service of the notice under section 148 was held invalid, the later notices and the ex parte assessment were also unsustainable.

Conclusion: Service of notice under section 148 was invalid and the reassessment proceedings and ex parte assessment were illegal.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded because the reassessment was founded on invalid service of the jurisdictional notice, and the consequential assessment could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice under section 148 must be validly served on the assessee or an authorised recipient, and such service is a condition precedent to reassessment; service on an unauthorised person cannot confer jurisdiction, nor can subsequent participation or knowledge cure the defect.

---