1973 (8) TMI 33

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as follows: "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the date of service of the assessment order on the petitioner should be May 19, 1966, or May 22, 1966?" The question assumes importance on account of the fact that the appeal filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax has been held to be barred by time. The undisputed facts may be indicated first. The assessme .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ne delay. The short question for consideration is whether Basudeb had any authority to receive the notice on behalf of the petitioner on May 19, 1966. It is the duty of the department to establish that service was made either on the assessee himself or on somebody duty authorised by him to receive such notice. The petitioner has been throughout contending that though Basudeb is a partner in one o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n fact the petitioner received the notice on May 22, 1966, and he shall have to file the appeal within thirty days from the date of receipt of such notice. In the absence of any evidence that Basudeb had due authority on behalf of the petitioner to receive summons, the question of law must be answered in favour of the petitioner by saying that the service of the assessment order on the petitioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X