Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The respondent, having her residence at Basirhat in the district of 24-Parganas, used to be assessed to income tax by the Income Tax Officer, B-Ward, Dist. 24 Parganas. The appellant No. 1 served a notice on the respondent informing her that on examination of the assessment records for the years 1953-54 to 1961-62 and other connected records, he considered that the orders of assessment passed by the said Income Tax Officer on June 14, 1961, were erroneous as they were prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this notice various grounds for reopening the assessment orders for the above mentioned assessment years were set out. In the returns filed by the respondent for the said years, she mentioned Basirhat address as her residence. The appellant No. 1, however, appears to have known that the respondent did not reside at the address disclosed by her, but actually resided at 20, Mullick Street, Calcutta. To make sure that the respondent received the notice, the appellant No. 1 sent the notices to both the addresses namely, Basirhat as well as No. 20 Mullick Street, Calcutta. The notice was served on the respondent by registered post an well as in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. On May 1, 1963, a notice was served on the respondent at 20, Mullick Street, Calcutta, and on May 2, 1963, the notice was served at the Basirhat address by affixing copies thereof. The notice sent to the respondent by registered post at the Basirhat address came back undelivered, but the notice sent to the Mullick Street address by registered post, was redirected and sent to Bidasar, Churu, Rajasthan, and was there served on the respondent on May, 8, 1963. On May 10, 1963 the respondent lent a written reply to the said notice. In this reply she contended that due to the short time allowed by the notice, it was not physically possible to produce the necessary evidence. She also alleged that she had a troublesome and complicated delivery and that the doctors were advising a major operation. She concluded by requesting at least four weeks time for representing her case before the appellant. She also asked for the substance of the enquiries made by the appellant No. 1 to enable her to rebut the materials collected against her.

6. Mr. G. Mitter, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that Banerjee, J., was wrong in upholding the respondent's contention that rules of natural justice had been violated, as adequate opportunity was not given to the respondent to make representations contemplated by Section 33-B of the Act. He argued that the notice issued by the appellant No. 1 under Section 33-B(1) of the Act was served on the respondent as required by law. Section 63 of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and Section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provided that the notice might be served on the person named therein either by post or as if it were a summons issued by a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure. It was argued that the address declared by the respondent in the return was the Basirhat address and the appellant No. 1 would have been perfectly justified in effecting service of the notice at that address only. But in order that no grievance might be made by the respondent with regard to the service of the notice, it was also served at another address, namely, 20, Mullick Street, Calcutta, which though not disclosed or declared by the respondent, was known to the appellant No. 1 to be the address of the respondent's residence. It was next argued that the appellant No. 1 had further taken the additional precaution of sending notices at both the said addresses by registered post, though it would have been enough if service was effected as prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Mitter further argued that the original notice was served by affixing at the last known address of the respondent at 20 Mullick Street, Calcutta, and also at Basirhat, 24-Parganas, on May 2, 1963, and May 3, 1963, respectively. This service by affixing, Mr. Mitter argued, was a perfectly good service, as it was done in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. But additional precaution was taken, Mr. Mitter argued, that by sending copies of the notices by registered post to 20 Mullick Street, and also to Basirhat. The notice sent by registered post to the Basirhat address came back undelivered, but the one sent to 20, Mullick Street, Calcutta, appears to have been redirected to the Bidasar address and was received by the respondent on May 8, 1963. It was argued that the Bidasar address was not the address disclosed or declared by the respondent in the returns filed by her. Whatever grievance the respondent might make, it was argued, with regard to her receiving the notice only on May 8, 1963, a day previous to the date fixed for the hearing of the matter, no complaint or grievance could be made with regard to the service of the notice by affixing at Basirhat and also at 20, Mullick Street, Calcutta. The notice was served by affixing at 20, Mullick Street, on May 2. 1963, and at the Basirhat address on May 3, 1963. The hearing being fixed for May 9, 1963, the respondent had ample time, Mr. Mitter argued, to make, whatever representations she desired to make, with regard to the action proposed to be taken under Section 33B of the Act.

8. Mr. Mitter next contended that the trial court was wrong in holding that the service of notice at Basirhat did not amount to service under Order V, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was argued that the trial court was also wrong in not taking into consideration the service of the notice at the Mullick Street address. The trial court, it was argued, proceeded on the basis as if the notice was served only at Basirhat, Mr. Mitter fur the argued that though the trial court noted that on May 1, 1963, the notice was sought to be served at No. 20, Mullick Street, in considering the validity or sufficiency of the service, the trial Court proceeded on the footing that the notice was served by affixing only at the Basirhat address.