https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184962 Service of notices under sections 22(4) and 23(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 depended on compliance with section 63(1), which allowed service only by post or in the manner prescribed for summons under the Code of Civil Procedure. Because the notices were not served by post, validity turned on proof of service under Order V, Rules 9 and 13. On the stated facts, delivery to an assistant at the shop did not establish service on the manager or show that the assistant was authorised to accept service. The notices were therefore not proved to have been validly served, and the reference was answered in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 29 Jan 1935 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:47:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184962 Service of notices under sections 22(4) and 23(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 depended on compliance with section 63(1), which allowed service only by post or in the manner prescribed for summons under the Code of Civil Procedure. Because the notices were not served by post, validity turned on proof of service under Order V, Rules 9 and 13. On the stated facts, delivery to an assistant at the shop did not establish service on the manager or show that the assistant was authorised to accept service. The notices were therefore not proved to have been validly served, and the reference was answered in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 29 Jan 1935 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184962