https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67835 Service of notice under section 148 was not proved in accordance with Order V Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure because the notice server's evidence did not establish valid delivery, refusal by the assessee, or proper affixation after refusal. The testimony also showed uncertainty about the premises where service was allegedly effected, and the partner's evidence did not cure the defect. On that factual basis, the reassessment was held invalid and the assessment was quashed in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 04 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:45:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67835 Service of notice under section 148 was not proved in accordance with Order V Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure because the notice server's evidence did not establish valid delivery, refusal by the assessee, or proper affixation after refusal. The testimony also showed uncertainty about the premises where service was allegedly effected, and the partner's evidence did not cure the defect. On that factual basis, the reassessment was held invalid and the assessment was quashed in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 04 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67835