C.S.P. Singh, J

1. THE controversy raised in this petition falls within a very narrow compass. We will set out only such facts as are necessary for the disposal of this application. The question that arises is as to whether there was valid service of the notice of demand on the assessee, petitioner No. 1. The petitioner, in his petition, has alleged that no notice of demand was served on him. In order to ascertain the facts correctly we directed Sri Deokinandan, counsel for the department, to produce the relevant papers. The "record was produced in court. From the record, it appears that N. D. challan for interest and challan for regular payment and I. T. 30 Form were sent by the process server addressed to the petitioner, assessee No. 1, on October 3, 1972 ; the process server on the back of this made the following endorsement in Hindi which translated runs:

"I inquired at a number of places but could not find out."

2. ON October 4, 1972, i.e., on the next day, the Income-tax Officer passed the following orders:

"I. T. I.--Please serve by affixture on the last known address."

On December 13, 1972, there is an endorsement running:

"Served by affixture in the presence of Sri M