https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6630 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. en-us Thu, 16 Dec 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6630 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 16 Dec 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6630