https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7056 A notice under section 34(1)(a) was validly served where the process-server personally tendered it, the assessee refused acceptance, and affixture at the residence followed as part of the same transaction. In those facts, the first limb of Order 5 Rule 17 applied, so the further requirement of due and reasonable diligence under the latter limb was not attracted. An attempt to rely on substituted service under Order 5 Rule 20 also failed because no prior authorising order was shown. As service was complete on 29 March 1958, the reassessment proceedings for the relevant assessment year were held to be within limitation. en-us Tue, 17 Jan 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7056 A notice under section 34(1)(a) was validly served where the process-server personally tendered it, the assessee refused acceptance, and affixture at the residence followed as part of the same transaction. In those facts, the first limb of Order 5 Rule 17 applied, so the further requirement of due and reasonable diligence under the latter limb was not attracted. An attempt to rely on substituted service under Order 5 Rule 20 also failed because no prior authorising order was shown. As service was complete on 29 March 1958, the reassessment proceedings for the relevant assessment year were held to be within limitation. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 17 Jan 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7056