Valid service of notice under Income-tax Act despite refusal; reassessment not time-barred.

The court held that the notice under section 34 of the Income-tax Act was validly served on the assessee despite refusal, as the process-server affixed the notice after attempts to deliver it. The court rejected the argument that the affixture was due to inability to find the assessee. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 1949-50 were not barred by limitation, and the petitioner was directed to pay costs to the respondents.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of notice served under section 34(1)(a) for the assessment year 1949-50 on 29th March, 1958.
2. Whether the reassessment proceedings under section 34 for the assessment year 1949-50 are barred by limitation.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The notice under section 34 of the Income-tax Act was sent for service on the assessee on 29th March, 1958. The process-server presented the notice to the assessee, who refused to accept it. The process-server then affixed the notice at the residence of the assessee on 29th March, 1958. The Income-tax Officer held that the notice was duly served, a view upheld by all superior income-tax authorities. The petitioner contended that the notice was not properly served as per the requirements of rule 17 of Order 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the court held that the service was valid, considering the refusal by the assessee to accept the notice and the subsequent affixture after reasonable attempts to locate the assessee.

Issue 2: The petitioner argued that the affixture of the notice was not due to the refusal by the assessee but because he could not be found, invoking rule 17 of Order 5. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the affixture was connected to the refusal by the assessee on 25th March, 1958. The court also dismissed the petitioner's reliance on rule 20 of Order 5 for substituted service, as there was no evidence of an order for such service. Consequently, the court answered the first question in the affirmative, stating that the notice was properly served, and the second question in the negative, indicating that the reassessment proceedings were not barred by limitation. The petitioner was directed to pay costs to the respondents.

---