SETH BALKISHAN DAS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS income-lax reference has been placed before us in pursuance of the order dated 29-4-1965 passed by a Division Bench of which I was a member. The question which we are called upon to answer was formulated by the Income-tax Tribunal (Delhi Bench) in the following terms:

(2.) THE submission strongly pressed before us by Shri Chetan Dass, learned Advocate for the assessee, is that the service which the department has relied upon is the service effected by means of affixation on the outer door of the residence of the assessee under the provisions of Order 6, Rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure, and this service is, in the absence of affixation of a copy of the notice on some conspicuous place in the Court-House or on some conspicuous place in the Income-tax Office, invalid. THE learned counsel has based this contention on the plain language of Section 63, Indian Income-tax Act 1922 and of Rule 20 of Order 5, Code of Civil Procedure. According to him, Court-House, as used in Rule 20, should, for the purpose of the present case, be deemed to mean Income-tax Office because the word "Court" has a varied Import.