Valid service of tax notice can be found from actual receipt, even where formal service was procedurally defective.

Service of a reassessment notice is not invalid merely because it was delivered through a person who was not formally authorised, if the assessee in fact received the notice. The Court treated the statutory mode of service as not exhaustive and accepted actual receipt as sufficient on the facts, including the assessee's return filed in response to the notice. A procedural defect in service will not defeat reassessment where no prejudice is shown, including any limitation-based prejudice. The notice was therefore treated as validly served and the reassessment sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice under section 22(2) read with section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was validly served on the assessee so as to sustain the reassessment.

Analysis: The statutory mode of service under section 63(1) was treated as not exhaustive. A notice served on a person who was not an authorised agent may still be effective if, on the facts, it is shown that the assessee in fact received it. Since the assessee filed a return in response to the notice served on the employee, the Court inferred actual receipt and rejected the objection that the original service was invalid. The Court also held that a mere procedural irregularity in service cannot defeat the reassessment where the assessee has received the notice and no prejudice such as limitation arose.

Conclusion: The notice was validly served in law and the reassessment was not vitiated.

Ratio Decidendi: Service of notice under the Income-tax Act is not invalid merely because it was effected through a person not formally authorised, if the assessee in fact received the notice and the service defect is only procedural.

---