Shah, J. - (1.) The appellant Champalal Binani was assessed by the Income-tax Officer B Ward, District 24-Parganas, to pay tax for the assessment years 1953-54 to 1960-61. The Commissioner of Income-tax West Bengal issued a notice on October 28, 1963 under Section 33-B of Income Tax Act, 1922, requiring the assessee to show cause why the orders of assessment be not revised. Three copies of the notice were sent to the assessee - one was addressed at Basantlal Shah Road, Tollygunje, Calcutta (which was the address disclosed by the assessee in his return for the assessment years 1953-54 to 1960-61); another was addressed at No. 18/C Mathur Sen Garden Lane, Calcutta - 6 (which was the address given by the assessee in his return for the assessment year 1962-63); and the third was addressed at No. 216, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Calcutta, "care of" Janki Lal Bajaj - brother-in-law of the assessee. By the notice, October 31, 1963 was fixed as the date for hearing. On October 31, 1963, the date fixed for hearing, the assessee was not present and the Commissioner set aside the order and directed the Income-tax Officer to make fresh assessments according to law after making proper enquiries and investigation. Against this order an appeal lay to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal within 60 days from the date on which the order was communicated to the assessee:Section 33-B. (3) But the assessee did not prefer an appeal; instead he moved a petition in the High Court of Calcutta for a writ quashing the order of the Commissioner and for directing him to forbear from acing upon the order in any manner what-ever. His principal contention was that in passing the order the Commissioner had "violated the principles of natural justice" and the "express provision of the law." Holding that the notice under Section 33-B was not served on the assessee a Single judge of the High Court set aside the order of the Commissioner. In appeal against that order by the Commissioner under the Letters Patent the High Court of Calcutta held that the notice addressed to the appellant at No. 18/C Mathur Sen Garden Lane, Calcutta-6, was properly served by affixing it at his place of business and that the assessee had opportunity of being heard as required by Section 33-B of the Income-tax Act.
(2.) In this appeal with special leave, Counsel for the assessee contended that the Commissioner violated the rules of natural justice because he did not give adequate opportunity to the assessee to appear and contest to notice. Section 83-B of the Income Tax Act, 1922, insofar as it is relevant, provides: " (1) The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Income-tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, xx xx xx xx (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) - (a) ********** (b) After the expiry of two years from the date of the order sought to be revised. ********** "
(3.) The period of two years prescribed by sub-section (2) (b) of Section 33-B within which power had to be exercised by the Commissioner was expiring on November 15, 1963. The Commissioner had, therefore, to take early steps to serve the notice upon the assessee. With that end in view he sent three copies of the notice at three different places. It is not suggested that the assessee was not carrying on his business at the two places addresses of which had been furnished by him in the returns filed. A notice to an assessee may be served as if it were a summons issued by the Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 63 (1) of the Income-tax Act 1922. The notice was affixed at the two places of which addresses were furnished by the assessee, and therefore, there was proper service of the notice.;