TMI Blog1987 (12) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the opposite parties, a sum of Rs. 2,99,413.50 representing part of the arrears of tax should be paid to him. The opposite parties raised an objection on the ground that demand notices as contemplated in section 156 of the Act were not at all served on them except for the years 1962-63 and 1963-64 in respect of income-tax dues of Rs 97,832.25 and Rs. 1,973, respectively, payable by opposite party No. 3. But, when appeals were preferred, the demand for the year 1962-63 was reduced by Rs. 20,000 and the demand for the year 1963-64 was modified, whereafter, no fresh demand notices were served. Therefore, the petition of the Income-tax Officer was liable to be rejected and no amount deposited to their credit should be paid to him. The learned sub-judge rejected the petition under section 226(4) of the Act on the ground that demand notices were not served on the opposite parties. He further found that the demand for the year 1962-63 was reduced by Rs. 20,000 in appeal, but this fact was not taken into consideration by the Income-tax Officer. No documents were also produced to show that the opposite parties had outstanding income-tax dues to the tune of Rs. 6,88,244. The main con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to this court to decide the civil revision afresh keeping in mind the limits of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (" the Code for short). I would first take up the arrears of income-tax dues of opposite party No. 3 for the years 1962-63 and 1963-64. The net tax due for the earlier year was Rs. 97,832.25 which was reduced by Rs. 20,000 in Appeal No. 128 of 1967-68 disposed of on April 1, 1969, by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Cuttack. The demand for the later year was modified in ITA Nos. 77 and 78 of 1970-71 by order dated May 12, 1972, of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, but the net amount of tax relief to which opposite party No. 3 was entitled was not indicated. Mr. Mohanty made a feeble attempt to contend that opposite party No. 3 is not even liable for these amounts. For getting that, a solemn statement had been made before the Supreme Court by Mr. Divan appearing for opposite party No. 3 and others conceding that the amounts were due as debts and should be paid out of the amount deposited in the civil court. The contention of Mr. Mohanty cannot be accepted in view of the concession. Out of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lal (opposite party No. 1) relating to the assessment year 1965-66 which was received on his behalf by one Patnaik on November 12, 1970. (5) Xerox copy of acknowledgement slip addressed to Manmohanlal (opposite party No. 1) for the assessment year 1965-66 received by some person on 24-3-(sic) from whose signature the name cannot be known. (6) Xerox copy of a notice of demand under section 156 of the Act addressed to Manmohanlal (opposite party No. 1), partner-Allied Dealers (opposite party No. 3), for the assessment year 1966-67 for Rs. 356 which was received on his behalf by someone from whose signature the name cannot be deciphered. (7) Xerox copy of acknowledgement slip addressed to Manmohanlal (opposite party No. 1) for the assessment year 1966-67 received by some person for M. M. Lal on November 10, 1970, from whose signature the name cannot be known. (8) Xerox copy of a notice of demand under section 156 of the Act addressed to Khasav Ch. Panda (opposite party No. 2) c/o Allied Dealers (opposite party No. 3), issued on October 14, 1968, for the assessment year 1963-64 for Rs. 23,777. (9) Xerox copy of a notice of demand under section 156 of the Act addressed to Khes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seems to be the demand notice addressed to Keshab Chandra Panda (opposite party No. 2) (his name has been wrongly spelt) for the year 1963-64. There is no acknowledgement slip to show that the demand notice was served on him. Serial Nos. 9 and 11 are two other demand notices addressed to him for the years 1965-66 and 1966-67 and the related acknowledgement slips are at serial Nos. 10 and 12 which seem to have been received by one Patnaik. There is no material on record to show that the person who received the notices was either a member of his family or an agent or a servant duly authorised to receive documents on his behalf. As a matter of fact, there is no material on record to show that opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 received the demand notices in person or the persons who appear to have received the demand notices on their behalf were either members of their respective families or were agents or servants duly authorised to receive documents on their behalf. In this connection, Mr. Mohanty made a reference to decision in C. N. Nataraj v. ITO [1965] 56 ITR 250 (Mys), in which the point for consideration was whether service of notice under section 148 of the Act on a servant was pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tices sent by registered post with A.D. should have been served personally on them. So far as opposite party No. 3 was concerned, clause (a) or (b) of sub-section (2) was applicable and the notices sent by registered post with A.D. should have been delivered either to the manager or the principal officer of the firm. The postal acknowledgement slips produced in the case, as already referred to in para. 8 above, do not disclose that the notices were delivered to the addresses or the manager or the principal officer. Sub-section (1) also mandates that the notices should be served as if it were summons issued by a court under the Code. On a reference to Order 5 of the Code, it appears that rules 9 to 19 deal with service of summons through a process server. Rule 19A deals with simultaneous issue of summons for service by post in addition to personal service. Subrule (1) thereof makes provision for service of summons by registered post with A.D. simultaneously with the issue of summons for service in the manner provided in rules 9 to 19 by a bailiff. According to sub-rule (2), service of summons by registered post with A.D. shall be deemed to be sufficient if it is delivered either to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
