COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. K C VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM Nos. 45, 47, 49 and 50/2003 For the reasons stated in the applications, delay in re -filing the appeals is condoned. The applications stand disposed of. CM Nos. 44, 46 & 48/2003 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. The applications stand disposed of. ITA Nos. 98 to 101/2003

(2.) SINCE the issue sought to be raised by the Revenue in all the four appeals is identical, these are being disposed of by this common order.

(3.) WE have heard Ms. Premlata Bansal, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue. Learned counsel while candidly admitting that service of first notice by affixture was not strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the CPC, submits that the second notice was served on the assessed through a process server, who presumably had given a report that he had served the same on the assessed. On a pointed query by the Court as to what exactly was the report of the process server, learned counsel expresses her ignorance about it. Learned counsel is unable to produce any evidence to show that any notice was, in fact, served on the assessed.