BHAGIRATH RAJPUT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall finally decide MAIT No. 62 of 2005 (Bhagirath Rajput vs. CIT), MAIT No. 29 of 2005 (Bhagirath Rajput vs. CIT), (MAIT No. 63 of 2005 (Bhagirath Rajput vs. CIT) and MAIT No. 64 of 2005 (Bhagirath Rajput vs. CIT).

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant after taking us through s. 282 of the Indian IT Act and the provisions of order V of the CPC (unamended) specially r. 12, r. 15, r. 17, r. 19 and r. 19A of order V of the CPC, submitted that in the present matter service of notice issued under s. 148 or under s. 142(1) of the IT Act was patently bad because one of the notices was served upon the erstwhile/ex -accountant of the appellant who was even otherwise not empowered as an agent to accept the notice and that the other notice was served upon minor son of the noticee/appellant.

(3.) CHANDRA that whether he was an agent empowered to accept the service. It is submitted that notice under s. 142(1) of nobody ever verified the age of minor son even when the appellant had filed his personal affidavit before the CIT(A) and had also filed copy of school certificate where the son studied.