TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ws: For the assessment year 1985-86, the accounts were produced by one of the partners of the petitioner-firm on March 6, 1987. On September 17, 1987, the assessing authority prepared a pre-assessment notice and it transpires that the said notice was served only by affixture on September 23, 1987 at the place of business. No doubt, there is an endorsement in the pre-assessment notice that the shop was always found closed and on enquiry, it was found that the petitioner never opened the shop. The assessing authority, therefore, concluded that the dealer was avoiding service of pre-assessment notice and the service of notice by affixture was, therefore, justified, according to him. The order of assessment was passed on October 7, 1987. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irunelveli. Even so, the Appellate Tribunal held that it was for the assessee to watch the assessment proceedings and he having failed to keep track of the assessment proceedings, the delay was not properly explained. Accordingly, the order of the first appellate authority was confirmed. 4.. Mr. K. Achuthan, learned counsel for the petitioner, urges before us that the Appellate Tribunal, having observed that there was a lacuna in the proceedings, ought to have condoned the delay and directed the appeal to be heard on merits. 5.. Mr. R. Mahadevan, learned Government Advocate, argues that inasmuch as the order of assessment was sent by registered post with acknowledgement due and the cover having been returned, the service of the order by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the question of affixture can be undertaken only under sub-clause (d), which clearly says that "if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable, by affixing it in some conspicuous place at his last known place of business or residence". We are clearly of the opinion that the assessing authority did not try all the methods prescribed in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) before directing affixture of notice at the last known place of business. The observation of the Appellate Tribunal that notice should have been sent to the permanent place of residence may not be quite correct, because the petitioner had furnished only his present address being the place of business and therefore, the authorities were justified in sending notice to the place of b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
