COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. KISHAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, 1969 -70 : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the findings of the AAC, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar to the effect be said to be proper service especially when the assessee has refused to accept the service of the said notice -

(2.) THE assessee is individual and as a sequel to the search and seizure operation was conducted on his premises, he filed revised return. The AO framed assessment under s. 144 of the Act on the basis of best judgment. The CIT(A) accepted the appeal mainly on the ground that the assessee had not been served. Evidence with regard to service by affixture was rejected on the ground that resort to affixture could not be straightaway taken without first taking other modes of service. The Tribunal affirmed the said finding. It was observed : "From the facts of the case, I find that the search and seizure operations had been taken at the business and residential prescribed with regard to the service of notice through the affixture yet the hurry which he had to make is quite held by their Lordships in different judgments of the different High Courts, referred to above . . . "

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Revenue is unable to show that there was any refusal of the assessee to accept service as has been assumed in the question referred. On the other hand, the Tribunal has categorically held that no other mode was adopted and steps for service of notice were taken about a week before the time was expiring.