Service of notice under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is valid if it is issued within eight years of the assessment year and is served by registered post, even if a copy of the notice is not affixed on a conspicuous place in the court-house or in the Income-tax office.

1. This income-tax reference has been placed before us in pursuance of the order dated April 29, 1965, passed by a Division Bench of which I was a member. The question which we are called upon to answer was formulated by the Income-tax Tribunal (Delhi Bench), in the following terms :

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the service of the notice under section 34 on the assessee was invalid at law as copy of the notice was not affixed at any conspicuous place in the courthouse or at any conspicuous place in the Income-tax Officer."

2. The facts have been stated in the referring order, but I may briefly recapitulate them for our present purpose. The assessee, Seth Bal Kishan Dass was assessed originally in February, 1948. Later, the Income-tax Officer had reason to believe at that certain immovable property and shares in the companies acquired by the assessee during the accounting period had escaped assessment because the same had not been disclosed in the original return. A notice for personal service under section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act (No. XI of 1922) was accordingly issued to the assessee on March 28, 1956. On the same day, a notice was also issued by registered post which was received by the assessee on April 2, 1956. The process-sever who had taken the notice for personal service reported to the Income-tax Officer on March 28, 1956, that he had tendered the notice to the assessee personally on the same day, but the assessee had declined to receive the same. The Income-tax officer, thereupon, directed service of notice by affixation. The notice was accordingly affixed on the outer door of the residence of the assessee on March 31, 1956. No copy of the notice was, however, affixed on any conspicuous place in the Income-tax office or in the court-house. There is no controversy about these facts which are undisputed.

3. The submission strongly pressed before us by Shri Chetan Dass, learned advocate for the assessee, is that the service which the department has relied upon is the service effected by means of affixation on the outer door of the residence of the assessee under the provision of Order V, rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure, and this service is, in the absence of affixation a copy of the notice on some conspicuous place in the court-house or on some conspicuous place in the income-tax office, invalid. The learned counsel has based this contention on the plain language of section 63, Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and of rule 20 of Order V, Code of Civil Procedure. According to him, court-house, as used in rule 20, should, for the purpose of the present case, be deemed to mean income-tax office because the word "court" has a varied import. The counsel has referred us to the Oxford English Dictionary, according to which the word "court" means the place, hall or chamber in which justice is administered. The place where the Income-tax Officer holds assessment proceedings may well according to the learned counsel, mean court-house. Stress has in this connection been laid on the argument that the department did not care to rely on the refusal by the assessee to accept the service of the notice when personally tender to him by the process-server; nor did the department rely on the notice dispatched by registered post, which though issued on March, 28, 1956, was received by the assessee on April 2, 1956. Support for the challenge to the validity of the notice has been sought by Dewan Chetan Dass from two Bench decision of this courts. The first case is reported as Jhabar Mal Chokhani v. Commissioner of Income-tax. This is followed in the second decision which is reported as Deulat Ram Khanna v. Commissioner of Incomes-tax. The contrary view adopted by a Bench of Saurashtra High Court in Menon Aba Isa Haji Adhreman Dharar v. Menon Mohad Haji Sulaiman Chamadia according to the counsel, is unsound. On behalf of the assessee, it is also submitted that the jurisdiction which this court ex