TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1963 (3) TMI 75
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... who resides at No. 8 Todar Mal Road, New Delhi. The assessment had been completed and the assessee requested the Income-tax Officer to reopen the case under section 27 of the Income-tax Act, but this request was not granted. The following chronological resume was given by the Tribunal: "23-3-1956 : Notice under section 34 issued. 28-3-1956 : Notice under section 34 not served in ordinary course, but by affixture in the presence of Inspector. 3-1-195 : Notice under section 22(4) issued for 21-1-57. 15-1-1957 : Notice under section 22(4) not served in ordinary course, but by affixture on 15-1-57 in the presence of Inspector. 31-1-1957 : Assessment completed under section 23(4). 27-3-1957 : ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure on 28th of March, 1956. Later on, notices under section 2(4) were served by affixture but nobody attended. The application under section 27 was consequently rejected. An appeal was filed against this order of the Income-tax Officer, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner declined to interfere in appeal holding that the application under section 27 was barred (vide exhibit "C"). The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal where it was contended that the service of the demand notice on 29th of March, 1957, was defective and further that the notice of demand itself was invalid because it was not accompanied with the necessary forms. The Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal, expressed the view that the assessee was an habitual defau....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the provisions of Order V, rule 20, of the Code of Civil Procedure, have been complied with in this case. We cannot go into the question whether the decision to serve notice under that provision was rightly arrived at or not. Order V, rule 20, runs as under: "(1) Where the court is satisfied that there is reason to believe that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service, or that for any other reason the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, the court shall order the summons to be served by affixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the court-house, and also upon some conspicuous part of the house (if any) in which the defendant is known to have last resided or carried on b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the court-house. In addition to that, it should be affixed either at the residence of the person sought to be served or in such other manner as the court thinks fit. The last requirement is substitutive of the penultimate requirement but is supplemental to the provision requiring the affixation of the summons at the court-house. A decision reported in Deccan Co-operative Bank Limited v. Parsram Tolaram AIR 1942 Sind 96 is in point. That was a case under Order XXI, rule 46, sub-rule (2), which is in pari materia. There, in the case of an attachment, a copy of the order is required to be affixed upon some conspicuous part of the court-house and another copy is to be sent to the debtor, etc. It was held by Weston J. that in Order to make an ....