GOPAL KRISHNA CHOUDHARY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the 30th March, 1964, the income-tax Officer, Purnea, assessed the petitioner to income-tax under Section 34, read with Section 22 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the year of assessment being 1949-50. He reopened the assessment for that year as he felt that certain facts were not fully and truly disclosed and issued notice under Section 34, read with Section 22 (2) of the Act. But as no additional information was supplied by the assessee, he assessed him to the best of his judgment on that date (30th March, 1964). On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the order of assessment. One of the important points taken up before him was that the actual notice informing the assessee that assessment for 1949-50 was being reopened was served on him after the 1st April, 1958, more than eight years after the end of the assessment year, namely, after the 31st March, 1950, and that, consequently, the reopening of the assessment was barred by limitation. This was rejected by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who held that the notice was served on him on the 25th March, 1958, and also on the 29th March, 1958. The same point was urged before the Income-tax Tribunal which upheld the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Then on an application under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for opinion of this Court:--

(2.) The facts as found by the Income-tax authorities are as follows : A notice under Section 34 of the Act was sent for service on the assessee through a process-server of the department who was accompanied by the Inspector of Income-tax. They both went to Madhipura where the petitioner resided on the 25th March, 1958, and met him there. The process-server present- ed the notice to him, but the assessee refused to accept the same "after being acquainted with the facts of the notice". The Inspector ot Income-tax then remained there and sent the process-server to the Income-tax Officer of Purnea "for further instructions". There is no evidence adduced by either party to show what happened when the process-server returned to Purnea. It is not known as to whether he met the Income-tax Officer and what further instructions that officer gave him. But the process-server returned to Madhipura and made a great search for the petitioner on the 28th March, 1958, and again on the 29th March, 1958, but he could not meet him. Then he hung the notice at a conspicuous part of the house of the petitioner at Madhipura on the 29th March, 1958, in the presence of witnesses. The Income-tax Officer examined the process-server on oath and also examined two of the witnesses and then held that the notice was duly served on the petitioner on the 29th March, 1958. and that view has been upheld by all the superior Income-tax authorities.

(3.) There was also an attempt to serve the process by registered post which was sent to the assessee on the 24th March, 1958. But that was received on the 3rd April, 1958, after the expiry of the period of limitation. Hence service by registered post need not be further discussed here.