<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1932 (2) TMI 26 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285940</link>
    <description>Service of a notice sent by registered post raises only a rebuttable presumption of due service, not a conclusive one, and that presumption may be displaced by contrary proof. Delivery at the assessee&#039;s residence to a person capable of acting as the addressee&#039;s agent was treated as valid service. On the facts, the assessee&#039;s minor son lived with him, had ordinary intelligence, and had previously received notices on his behalf, so his signing of the postal acknowledgment did not vitiate service. A minor may, in proper circumstances, act as an agent for acceptance of delivery, and the notice was therefore validly served.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 1932 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=602628" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1932 (2) TMI 26 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285940</link>
      <description>Service of a notice sent by registered post raises only a rebuttable presumption of due service, not a conclusive one, and that presumption may be displaced by contrary proof. Delivery at the assessee&#039;s residence to a person capable of acting as the addressee&#039;s agent was treated as valid service. On the facts, the assessee&#039;s minor son lived with him, had ordinary intelligence, and had previously received notices on his behalf, so his signing of the postal acknowledgment did not vitiate service. A minor may, in proper circumstances, act as an agent for acceptance of delivery, and the notice was therefore validly served.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 1932 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285940</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>