Validity of income-tax notice by registered post preserved despite defective affixation under civil procedure rules.

A notice under section 34 was not invalid merely because, after refusal of personal service and affixation at the assessee's residence, no copy was affixed in the court-house or income-tax office. Section 63 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 allowed service either by post or as a summons under the Code of Civil Procedure, and service by registered post within the limitation period was sufficient on the proved facts. The defect in the affixation procedure did not nullify the notice where timely postal service had been effected. The objection to validity of service therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a notice issued under section 34 was invalid because, though affixed on the assessee's residence after refusal of personal service, no copy was affixed at a conspicuous place in the court-house or income-tax office, and whether service by registered post within the limitation period saved the notice.

Analysis: Section 63 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 permitted service of notice either by post or as if it were a summons under the Code of Civil Procedure. The notice was issued by registered post within the prescribed period, and was also attempted through personal service and affixation. The failure to affix a copy in the court-house or income-tax office did not invalidate the notice when service by post was available and had been timely effected. The scope of the reference was broad enough to permit examination of the validity of service on the proved facts.

Conclusion: The notice was validly served and the objection to its validity failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a notice under the Income-tax Act is validly issued by registered post within limitation, service is not rendered invalid merely because an affixation mode of service did not strictly comply with every procedural requirement of Order V, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

---