ARUN K.MUKHERJEA, J.

1. THIS is an appeal against a judgment and order dt. 19th Nov., 1965, of Banerjee J. by which the appellant's application for quashing of certain proceedings under s. 33B of the IT Act was dismissed.

2. When the matter came up for decision before Banerjee J. various points were urged including the point as to whether the appellant had been given reasonable opportunity of being heard, before the CIT exercised his powers under s. 33B of the Indian IT Act, 1922, for the purpose of revising the assessment of the appellant's income for the asst. yrs. 1959-60 to 1961-62. Banerjee J. found that all the points raised by the appellant except the point as to reasonable opportunity were covered by a decision of this Court in Kalawati Debi Haralalka vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 314 (Cal) and did not require any fresh consideration. These points were all summarily rejected by the learned Judge. The only point that the learned Judge seriously considered and then decided against the appellant-petitioner was the point as to reasonable opportunity. At the time of hearing of this appeal Mr. A. K. Sen, appearing on behalf of the appellant, also confined himself to the point of reasonable opportunity. Therefore, in relating the facts and circumstances of this case we confine ourselves only to those which are relevant for consideration of the point of reasonable opportunity.

On 19th Oct., 1963, the Commissioner of Income-tax (hereinafter referred to as the CIT) issued a notice addressed to the appellant concerning a proposed revision under s. 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act of the assessments of the appellant-petitioner for the years 1959-60 to 1961-62. In the letter constituting this notice it is stated that according to the CIT the orders of assessment passed by the ITO, "D" Ward on 28th Nov., 1961, in respect of the aforesaid assessment years had been " erroneous in so far as they were prejudicial to the interests of revenue ". The CIT in that letter gave reasons as to why he considered those orders erroneous and then stated that he proposed to pass orders on those cases after giving the appellant-petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The hearing was fixed on 2nd Nov., 1963, at 10-30 a. m. at the office of the CIT where the appellant was requested to produce all necessary evidence. The appellant was also told that any written objections accompanied by necessary evidence in support of these objections received on or before the appointment for personal hearing would be duly considered by the CIT. This notice, as we shall presently see, was never served on the appellant in time. The notice was sent by registered post to three addresses, viz., (i) 7, Banerjee Para Street, Uttarpara, Hooghly, (ii) 2, Grand Trunk Road, Ballykhal, Howrah, and (iii) 47, Banerjee Para Street, Uttarpara, Hooghly. All these three registered letters were served upon the appellant on or about 18th Nov., 1963, through a post office in Midnapore. In the meantime the CIT caused a copy of the notice to be served upon the petitioner by affixation at No. 2, Grand Trunk Road, Ballykhal, Howrah, on 22nd Oct., 1963. There is lot of controversy regarding the factum as well as the validity of this service. We shall in due course deal with those controversies. But it is necessary now to take notice of two statements of H. P. Neogi, Income-tax Inspector, dt. 21st Oct., 1963, and 22nd Oct., 1963, respectively. These were in the shape of reports submitted by him to his office. The reports are so important for the purpose of this appeal that I consider it necessary to set out these reports verbatim. The reports were as follows : Report dt. 21st Oct., 1963.

"Reg.-Sri Ramendra Nath Ghosh for and on behalf of Sailendra Nath Ghosh and Ors. of 2 G. T. Road, Ballykhal, Howrah. Sm. Sibani Rani Ghosh, 2, G. T. Road, Ballykhal, Howrah...... Sm. Rashmoni Ghosh, 2, G. T. Road, Ballykhal, Howrah........ Sri Ramendra Nath Ghose, 2, G. T. Road, Ballykhal, Howrah. Had been to t