SRINIWAS Vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER A WARD SITAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the circumstances in which it has been filed being shortly as follows :

(2.) On 31-3-1955, the respondent, who is the Income-tax Officer, A Ward, Sitapur, issued two notices under Section 34, Income-tax Act, to the petitioners who are five in number. The address of the petitioners was given in each of these notices as being care of Messrs. Pushkar Mal Sagar Mal, Nai Bazar, Lakhimpur Kheri, within this State. The notices (which were the same in form) stated that the respondent had reason to believe that the. income of the petitioners assessable to income-tax for the year ending 31-3-1947 had both escaped assessment and had been under-assessed, that he proposed to assess such income and it called upon the petitioners to deliver within the time stated in the notices a return of their total income and total world income assessable to income-tax for the year ending 31-8-1947. These notices, it is to be observed, were issued by the respondent on the last day of the maximum period of eight years within which a notice may be issued under Section 34 of the Act.

(3.) One of these notices was sent by post and was delivered on the following day, the 1st April, to Sri Banarsi Das, a partner of the firm Pushkar Mal Sagar Mal. The learned Standing Counsel does not contend that this constituted service on the asses-sees or any of them. The other notice was delivered on the same day, the 31st March, by a peon in the service of the Income-tax Department to one Maha-bir Prasad who is a son of Ham Deo the second petitioner. It is not in dispute that at that time the first and second respondents resided in Jhajhar in Jaipur and that the other three respondents resided at Kan-pur. Mahabir Prasad forwarded the notice to his father at Jhajhar who received it on the 22nd April.