TMI Blog1935 (1) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arries on a chemist and druggist business at 32, Mogul Street, Rangoon, under the style of Dey Brothers. L. M. Dey acquired the business in January 1932. He lives in Calcutta and the business at Rangoon is carried on by one S.M. Dutta, who was appointed by the assessee as the manager of the Rangoon business in March 1932. The assessment under consideration is for the year 1931-32. On August 8, 1932, notices under Sections 22 (2) and 23 (4) were issued by the Income Tax Officer. They were taken by the process server to 32, Mogul Street, and were delivered to one J. C. Mazumdar, an assis tant in the shop, who signed on the back of the duplicate copies for Dey Brothers under a rubber stamp. Under Section 63 (1), Income Tax Act (XI of 1922 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served by him or one of his subordinates. Rule 13. (1) In a suit relating to any business or work against a person who does not reside within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court from which the summons is issued, service on any manager or agent, who, at the time of service, per sonally carries on such business or work for such person within such limits, shall be deemed good service. Now, it is common ground in the present case that S. M. Dutta and no one else was the agent of the assessee resident within the jurisdiction who was empowered to accept service of the summonses, and that Dutta alone was the manager or agent of the assessee who at the time of service was personally carrying on the business of Dey Brother ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resolved itself to this fine point; whether where a notice under the Income Tax Act is delivered otherwise than by post to any clerk or servant on the premises where the assessee carries on business, and according to the practice obtaining in the business the employee is expected to hand over any communication which he has received to the manager, that is evidence upon which the income tax authorities can find as a fact that the manager was served with the summons. I have no doubt that is not; for if we were to hold that it was, it would follow that merely because a process server happens to hand over a notice to a durwan or it might be to a chaprasi, that would be evidence that the person under whom the durwan or the chaprasi was serving h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
