Judgment :- N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. The assessee, A. K. M. Govindaswamy Chettiar, Dindigul, was an individual and a resident in India. He died during the course of reference proceedings and his legal representatives were brought on record. The assessee derived income from business and properties in India. He was also having share income from firms in Kualalumpur and Singapore and income from store at Ipoh. The original assessment in the case of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1974-75 was completed on an income of Rs. 1, 00, 030 on 26th July, 1975 and after the completion of the original assessment, there was an audit objection pointing out that there were remittances received by the assessee during the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1974-75 of an extent of Rs. 1, 50, 000 on various dates and a sum of Rs. one lakhs received in the earlier assessment years were taxable and these two assessments required revision on that account. The ITO did not reopen the assessment at once and he required the assessee to furnish particulars regarding credits disclosed and furnished in the books of accounts maintained by him. The ITO requested the assessee to produce the details. The assessee explained the credit to the extent of Rs. 1.50 lakhs arising out of debts in the accounts of the foreign firms to the extent of Rs. 1 lakhs during the previous year. The ITO noticed a similar credit of Rs. 1 lakh even in an earlier year and found that there was no correlation in respect of a sum of Rs. 50, 000 and there was not even a corresponding debit entry in respect of another amount of Rs. 50, 000 in the foreign firm. The ITO directed the Inspector to enquire with the bank about the details and the Inspector of Income-tax conducted an enquiry and found that the last draft on 26th December, 1973 was not even a foreign draft and the source was not traceable. The assessee furnished a certificate of the Chartered Accountants during the enquiry and the certificate also did not confirm that the alleged draft received on 26th December, 1973 was received from abroad. The ITO found that the sum of Rs. 1 lakh received during immediately preceding year and credited in the personal accounts would not have been available to explain the source of the credits during the year. The ITO found that the sum of Rs. 1 lakh received during immediately preceding year and credited in the personal accounts would not have been available to explain the source of the credits during the year. Armed with the above details, the ITO initiated proceedings for the reassessment on the ground that there was no source to cover the debit in foreign books for the alleged remittance of Rs. 50, 000 credited in assessee's books on 26th December, 1973 and to that extent there was an escapement of income during the relevant previous year. The ITO initiated the proceedings within four years from the end of the relevant previous year and therefore, he did not get the approval of the CIT. After the notices were issued, the assessee filed a petition before the IAC under s. 144A of the IT Act seeking intervention of the IAC on the ground that there was no escapement of income as total debits in the foreign accounts were more than enough for remittance of Rs. 1, 50, 000 in India. The ITO found, on scrutiny of accounts, particularly the remittance made from abroad that there was an excess credit of Rs. 50, 000 for which there was no debit in foreign books of accounts and accordingly, he completed the assessment treating the unexplained credit in India of Rs. 50, 000 on 26th December, 1973 as the income from other sources under s. 68 of the Act and there was no debit in the foreign accounts for the remittance of Rs. 50, 000 in the Indian books of accounts on 26th December, 1973. 2. The assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) against the order of reassessment. Several contentions were raised on behalf of the assessee. The CIT(A) held that the notice under s. 148 of the Act was served on the agent of the assessee, though not a power agent and rejected the plea of the assessee that there was no valid service of notice on the assessee. The CIT(A) also rejected that there were materials to reopen the assessment and the assumption of jurisdiction of the ITO under s. 147(b) of the Act was justified. The CIT(A) also rejected that there were materials to reopen the assessment and the assumption of jurisdiction of the ITO under s. 147(b) of the Act was justified. The CIT(A) also held that on merits of the case, there was no satisfactory explanation produced by the assessee and the ITO had rightly assessed the same as the income of the assessee under s. 168 of the Act. In this view of the matter, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. 3. The assessee carried the matter further by filing an appeal before the Tribunal and repeated the same contentions which were urged before the CIT(A). The Tribunal also held that the notice under s. 148 of the Act was validly served. The Tribunal noticed that different persons were acting as agents in the absence of the power agent of the assessee and there was no exclusive agent. That apart, according to the Tribunal, the service was acknowledged on 24th March, 1979 by the authorised representative of the assessee asking for time to file the return and the Tribunal also noticed that the very form issued by the ITO was returned to the officer on 6th March, 1980 along with a covering letter and thus the notice was complied with. The Tribunal noticed the contention of the Revenue that there was no objection either before the AO or even before the IAC that there was no valid service on the assessee and the jurisdiction was questioned only before the CIT(A) after the decision of this Court in the case of Jayanthi Talkies Distributors vs. CIT. The Tribunal noticed the fact that there had been receipt of the notices by the same person in the past through the same process server and such past notices were complied with. The Tribunal, then came to the conclusion that the notice under s. 148 of the Act was validly served and the decision of this Court in Jayanthi Talkies Distributors' case has no application to the facts of the case. The Tribunal also upheld the assessment on merits of the case on the ground that for credit entry made on 26th December, 1973, there was no draft received from the foreign firm and there was no corresponding debit in the books of the foreign firm. The Tribunal also upheld the assessment on merits of the case on the ground that for credit entry made on 26th December, 1973, there was no draft received from the foreign firm and there was no corresponding debit in the books of the foreign firm. The Tribunal also noticed the enquiry made with the banker and held that if the money came from abroad, it would have been necessary for the assessee to explain the source as he is the recipient and there was no explanation in so far as the source of the receipt. The Tribunal held that the ITO was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 50, 000 was assessable under the head, 'other sources'. The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. 4. On application filed by the assessee, the Tribunal rejected the questions of law and on the basis of the direction of this Court in TCP No. 286 of 1983, dt. 14th November, 1983, the Tribunal referred to us the following questions of law for our consideration : "1." Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the notice dt. 24th March, 1979, issued under s. 149 (sic) was validly served on the assessee ? 2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the reassessment proceedings under s. 147 of the Act ? "5. Mr. T. V. Ramanathan, learned counsel for the assessee, very forcefully argued that there was no finding that the notice was served on a registered or authorised agent of the assessee. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, the assessee had one A. K. Angusamy as his power agent and when it is not the case that it was served on the said Angusami who was the authorised power agent, but served on some other person, the service of notice was not valid. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, the assessee had one A. K. Angusamy as his power agent and when it is not the case that it was served on the said Angusami who was the authorised power agent, but served on some other person, the service of notice was not valid. He submitted that the Tribunal has not recorded any finding on whom the notice was served and as the finding of the Tribunal was that different persons viz., Angusami, Thangarajan and Balraj were acting as the agent and in the absence of any further finding that it was served on anyone of them, the order of the Tribunal holding that there was a valid service of notice under s. 148 of the Act is not sustainable in law. He referred to the provisions of s. 148 of the Act and submitted that there must be a valid service of notice to reopen the assessment and in the absence of any service on the assessee or on his power agent authorised in writing, the service of notice on an unauthorised person is not valid in law. He also submitted that earlier notices were notices under ss. 210 or 273 or 274 of the Act and they would involve no action on the part of the assessee except the payment of advance tax or to send a reply to notices under s. 273 or 274 of the Act. He further submitted that those notices were not having legal consequences and in so far as the notice under s. 148 of the Act in concerned, he submitted that there must be a valid service of notice and without a valid service of notice, the reassessment proceeding initiated was not valid in law. He submitted that the fact that the notice reached the assessee is not good enough to assume that there was a valid service of notice and the subsequent conduct of the assessee cannot form a good ground to show that there was a valid service of notice on the assessee and that would not cure the defective service of notice on an unauthorised person. He submitted that the decision of this Court in Jayanthi Talkies Distributors' case cited supra, squarely applies to the facts of the case and admittedly the notice was not served on the authorised agent and the notice was not served on other persons as noticed by the Tribunal. He therefore, submitted that the service of notice was not validly effected by the Department and therefore, entire proceedings must be held to be bad. He also submitted that there is no estoppel and the mere fact that the assessee has not raised the objection earlier would not prevent the assessee to raise the objection before the Tribunal and it is for the Department to prove positively that the service was validly made. Mr. T. V. Ramanathan, learned counsel for the assessee relied on the decision in Thangam Textiles vs. ITO and submitted that merely because the assessee filed an objection to the notice, it cannot be stated that there was a valid initiation of reassessment proceedings and the service of prescribed notice on the assessee is a condition precedent for the validity of any reassessment under s. 147 of the Act. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the decision of this Court in the case of N. Bella Gowder vs. Tahsildar, Coonoor, is distinguishable and that case was not a case under s. 148 of the IT Act, but a case relating to the proceedings for recovery of certain amount from the director and in that context, this Court held that when a person was aware of the recovery proceedings, the non-service of the notice under r. 2 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the IT Act, 1961, would not vitiate the proceedings. Learned counsel for the assessee strongly relied upon a decision of this Court in S.B. Muthumunia Mudaliar vs. Commr. of Agrl. IT and submitted that mere participation in the proceedings would not be sufficient as the sine qua non for the reassessment is the valid service of notice. He, therefore, submitted that merely because the assessee participated in the proceedings would not be sufficient to hold that there was a valid service of notice. of Agrl. IT and submitted that mere participation in the proceedings would not be sufficient as the sine qua non for the reassessment is the valid service of notice. He, therefore, submitted that merely because the assessee participated in the proceedings would not be sufficient to hold that there was a valid service of notice. He also invited our attention to the decision of a Full Bench of Assam High Court in Tansukhrai Bodulal vs. ITO, and submitted that the issue of a valid notice is not a mere procedural requirement but is a condition precedent for the exercise of the jurisdiction of the ITO to reopen the assessment proceedings. Learned counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramsukh Motilal, held that by merely filing a return under protest, it cannot be stated that the assessee had waived his right to contend that the proceedings are without jurisdiction and illegal. He also referred to the decision of this Court in General Commercial Corpn. Ltd. vs. CIT, and submitted that if the notice is not served in the manner prescribed in the Act, it will go to the root of the matter and that cannot be waived. He submitted that unless it is established that the notice was served on the direction of the assessee on the person who received the notice, the notice served on a third party cannot be regarded as a valid service of notice. 6. Learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand, relied upon a decision in the case of CIT vs. Bhanji Kanji's Shop, and submitted that where a return has been filed by the assessee in pursuance of the notice served on his temporary employee, it can be held that reassessment proceeding was properly initiated. He submitted that any irregularity will not vitiate the proceedings and in support of his submission, learned counsel for the Revenue placed reliance on a decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Mahendra Kumar Agrawalla vs. ITO 1975 CTR(Pat) 33 : 1975 (103) ITR 688 (Pat) : TC 51R.999, and the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Dr. H. R. Rai vs. CIT. H. R. Rai vs. CIT. In so far as the decision of this Court in Thangam Textiles vs. ITO (supra) is concerned, he submitted that though objection was taken before the ITO that the notice served was not legal and valid, the assessee filed a writ petition challenging the notice. He submitted that on the facts of the instant case, the assessee has not raised any objection before the ITO and even after the completion of the reassessment proceedings, no objection was raised and only at the time of hearing of the appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee has raised objection regarding the validity of service of notice. Learned counsel for the Revenue further submitted that the decision of this Court in Jayanthi Talkies Distributors vs. CIT (supra) is distinguishable on the facts of the case. 7. Mr. T. V. Ramanathan, learned counsel for the assessee, in his reply, submitted that the decisions in CIT vs. Kar Valves Ltd., Mahendra Kumar Agrawalla vs. ITO (supra) and Dr. H. R. Rai vs. CIT (supra) are not applicable to the facts of the case as in those cases the assessee accepted the notice, but, in the instant case, the assessee was not even aware of the reassessment notice as he was not in India and when there was no conscious acceptance of the notice, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the Revenue have no application to the facts of the case. Learned counsel for the assessee placed strong reliance on a decision of Gujarat High Court in P. V. Doshi vs. CIT, and submitted that the service of notice is a mandatory requirement and cannot be waived by the assessee. 8. Before considering the rival submission, it is necessary to mention here that the learned counsel for the assessee has not seriously disputed the addition made in the reassessment proceedings. The facts also clearly show that the credit entry of Rs. 50, 000 was found in the assessee's books of accounts on 26th December, 1973. It was found that it was described as a draft received from A. K. Muthan Chettiar & Sons, Kualalumpur and that was found to be incurred and there was no corresponding debit entry in the books of accounts of the foreign firm. 50, 000 was found in the assessee's books of accounts on 26th December, 1973. It was found that it was described as a draft received from A. K. Muthan Chettiar & Sons, Kualalumpur and that was found to be incurred and there was no corresponding debit entry in the books of accounts of the foreign firm. The Tribunal examined the entire transactions of debits and credits and found that there was no corresponding debit entry in the foreign accounts for the credit made on 26th December, 1973. The Tribunal found that the ITO had conducted the enquiry with the bank and the enquiry also revealed that there was no remittance from abroad. The further finding of the Tribunal was that there was no explanation by the assessee regarding the credit in his personal accounts and therefore, the Tribunal, on the basis of materials, came to the conclusion that the addition of Rs. 50, 000 shown as credit in the current accounts of the assessee was justified. We find no error in the order of the Tribunal and accordingly, the finding on addition of Rs. 50, 000 is sustainable. 9. The only question that remains to be considered is whether there was a valid service of notice. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the notice under s. 148 of the Act was served and acknowledged by a person whose signature is not legible. The Tribunal found that the acknowledgement is dt. 24th March, 1979 and the initial of the person who acknowledged the notice probably are M.R.V. with his name starting with the letter 'S'. It was also found that there was a similar notice under s. 210 which was received by the same person and the notice was also complied with. The Tribunal also recorded a finding that notices under ss. 273 and 274 of the Act for the asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1974-75 were served on 6th August, 1975 on the same person and that person clearly noted behind the notice 'A.K.M.G'. The Tribunal, on the perusal of the records, came to the conclusion that there were instances of service on the same person and came to the conclusion that it cannot be stated that only Thangarajan, Balraj and Angusamy were the only authorised agents to receive the notice. The Tribunal, on the perusal of the records, came to the conclusion that there were instances of service on the same person and came to the conclusion that it cannot be stated that only Thangarajan, Balraj and Angusamy were the only authorised agents to receive the notice. The finding of the Tribunal makes it clear that it cannot be stated that only A. K. Angusamy was the power agent to receive the notices, as contended by the assessee. The assessee's representative has also asked for time to file the return and at that time, there was no objection by the assessee that the service of notice was not valid and proper. The assessee while filing the return on 6th March, 1980 returned the same form issued by the ITO which itself clearly shows that the notice reached the assessee. There was no objection by the assessee either before the ITO or before IAC as to the validity of the service of notice. 10. In this factual situation, the question that has to be considered is whether the service of notice under s. 148 of the IT Act was valid and proper. There is no dispute that under s. 148 of the IT Act, the issue of notice as well as service of notice under s. 147 on the assessee is a condition precedent to the validity of the reassessment proceedings under s. 148 of the Act. The service on the assessee in a manner known to law and in accordance with the law is a sine qua non for the valid initiation of the reassessment proceedings. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Narayana Chetty vs. ITO, though rendered under the Indian IT Act, 1922, would equally apply to the proceedings under s. 147 of the Act. Therefore, the service of the notice prescribed under s. 148 of the Act, as held by the apex Court in Narayana Chetty's case, is a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment under s. 34 of the Act, 1922 (corresponding to s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961). Therefore, the service of the notice prescribed under s. 148 of the Act, as held by the apex Court in Narayana Chetty's case, is a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment under s. 34 of the Act, 1922 (corresponding to s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961). A Full Bench of the Assam High Court in the case of Tansukhrai Bodulal vs. ITO (supra) is also an authority for the proposition that issue of a valid reassessment notice is a condition precedent and it is not a mere procedural requirement for the exercise of the jurisdiction of the ITO to reassess the income of the assessee under s. 148 of the Act and there can be no waiver of the notice under s. 147 of the Act, as such the service of notice is a condition precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction to assess the income under s. 147 of the Act. 11. In Thangam Textiles vs. ITO (supra), this Court held that there is no difference between the old Act and the new Act in regard to the reassessment proceedings, and it was held that notice under s. 148 is a foundation for the initiation of reassessment proceedings and a condition precedent for the validity of the reassessment. This Court also rejected the contention that merely because the notice was addressed to the assessee, would not establish that there was a valid service of notice and unless the notice was served in the prescribed manner, the service was held to be insufficient. This Court followed a decision of Mysore High Court in the case of Nataraj vs. ITO, and held that the service should be in accordance with the provisions of the Act and unless the provisions relating to the mode of service are strictly complied with, the reassessment proceeding would be without jurisdiction. A similar view was also taken by a learned Judge of this Court in S. P. Muthumunia Mudaliar vs. Commr. of Agrl. IT (supra) wherein the learned judge held that the sine qua non for action under s. 35 of the Madras Agrl. A similar view was also taken by a learned Judge of this Court in S. P. Muthumunia Mudaliar vs. Commr. of Agrl. IT (supra) wherein the learned judge held that the sine qua non for action under s. 35 of the Madras Agrl. IT Act, 1955 is that the officer should believe that there has been an escapement of income and the mere fact that the assessee participated in the proceedings would not validate the said proceedings of the assessment passed pursuant thereto, when the records do not disclose that the condition precedent for initiation of proceedings under s. 35 was absent. 12. Learned counsel for the assessee refers to O. 3, r. 1, of the CPC which provides for appearance by a recognised agent or by a pleader. He also refers to O. 3, r. 6(2), of the CPC which provides for appointment of a recognised agent and the said sub-rule lays down that the said appointment shall be made by an instrument in writing signed by the principal, and such instrument or a certified copy thereof shall be filed in Court if the appointment is general. He, therefore, submitted that only on the filing of a written instrument with the ITO, the agent was empowered to receive notice on behalf of the assessee and therefore, the notice served on M.R.V. was not valid at all. We are, however, unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee as under O. 5, r. 12, wherever it is practicable, service shall be made on the defendant in person unless he has an agent empowered to accept service in which case service on such agent shall be sufficient. Under O. 5, r. 13, in a suit relating to any business or work against a person who does not reside within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court from which summons was issued, the service on any manager or agent, who was personally carrying on such business or work for such person within the limits of the Court's jurisdiction should be deemed to be a good service. Admittedly, the assessee was not within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the ITO, but the business was carried on within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the ITO. Admittedly, the assessee was not within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the ITO, but the business was carried on within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the ITO. In such situation, the service on the manager or agent who was personally carrying on the business on behalf of the assessee would be sufficient. In the instant case, we have seen that there are more than one person who have been receiving notices under the IT Act and different persons have acted in the absence of the power agent to receive notice. The assessee was having business in India and when the notice was served through the process server of the IT Department, the notice is deemed to have been served as it can ordinarily be expected that the process server knew the person on whom the service was effected. Further, it is also not the case of the assessee that he has filed necessary authorisation forms empowering only A. K. Angusamy to receive notice on his behalf. Therefore, the notice served on the person who was receiving the notices cannot be said to be, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, invalid. It is no doubt true that there should be valid service of notice and the notice has to be served in terms of the CPC and the mere fact that the recipient was representing the assessee, would not be sufficient to hold that he was authorised to receive notice. But, on the facts of the case, subsequent conduct of the assessee in not raising any objection regarding the validity of the service of notice, the request for extension of time to file return and assessee's readiness in filing the return in compliance of the notice should all be taken into account in considering the question whether there was a valid service or not. 13. A decision of this Court in Jayanthi Talkies Distributors vs. CIT (supra) on which great reliance was placed by the counsel for the assessee is distinguishable. In that case, the assessee was a firm and notice was served on one Balakrishna Pillai and it was found that the service of Balakrishna Pillai was terminated at the time of service of notice under s. 148 of the IT Act. In that case, the assessee was a firm and notice was served on one Balakrishna Pillai and it was found that the service of Balakrishna Pillai was terminated at the time of service of notice under s. 148 of the IT Act. Further, there was no compliance of notice under s. 148 of the Act by filing return on behalf of the firm and in that factual matrix, this Court held that" mere fact that a person accepted the notice on behalf of the assessee on previous occasion and appeared for the assessee would not constitute an agent on whom a notice or request under the Act would be validly served, nor any statement made by him would bind the assessee ". In our opinion, the judgment of this Court in Jayanthi Talkies Distributors' case (supra) is distinguishable as it was found that the service was effected on an unauthorised person to receive the notice. On the other hand, in the instant case, the notice has been served on a person who had been receiving notices on behalf of the assessee and the assessee in the instant case would have known the person who initialled for the service of notice as M.R.V. with his name starting with the letter 'S'. But the assessee has not taken any step to establish before the first appellate authority the person who received the notice and whether the recipient was not authorised to receive notice. The case of the assessee was that only A. K. Angusamy was his power agent. But, the contention of the assessee was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that there was no exclusive agent and more than one person had been acting as an agent of the assessee. In such a situation, it is the duty of the assessee to establish before the authorities the person who received the notice as the notice found its way to the assessee and also to establish that the recipient was not authorised to receive notice. 14. The Tribunal relied upon O. 5, r. 12, of the CPC which reads as under :" Wherever it is practicable, service shall be on the defendant in person unless he has an agent empowered to accept the service in which case service on such agent shall be sufficient". 14. The Tribunal relied upon O. 5, r. 12, of the CPC which reads as under :" Wherever it is practicable, service shall be on the defendant in person unless he has an agent empowered to accept the service in which case service on such agent shall be sufficient". There is no dispute that the assessee was residing outside India and there were more than one person who had received notices on behalf of the assessee and the notice was complied with and the assessee has not raised any objection either before the ITO or before the IAC but raised objection only before the first appellate authority. In this factual situation, we are of the opinion, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the service of notice under s. 148 of the Act was validly effected on the assessee. 15. We have already seen the decision of this Court in General Commercial Corpn. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) wherein this Court held that the service must be deemed to have been effected validly on the principal officer when the notice was served on the person who was authorised to receive notice or at any rate, the receipt by him had been acknowledged on behalf of the principal officer subsequently. The ratio of the above decision is that if the receipt of the notice has been acknowledged subsequently, that would constitute a valid service of notice on the company. 16. The Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhanji Kanji's Shop (supra) held that where the return has been filed by the assessee in pursuance of notice served on the temporary employee, it must be held that the notice was received by him and the reassessment proceedings were properly initiated. The Patna High Court in Mahendra Kumar Agrawalla vs. ITO (supra) has also taken the same view and held that though the notice under s. 148 of the Act was served on the clerk who was not authorised to receive notice on behalf of the assessee, when the assessee and his brothers acted on that notice, the reassessment proceedings cannot be held to be invalid for want of proper notice. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dr. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dr. H. R. Rai vs. CIT (supra) has taken the same view and held that the service of notice was valid though the person on whom the notice was served was not authorised to receive notice, when the assessee participated in the reassessment proceedings without any objection and the irregularity in the service of notice would not invalidate the assessment proceedings. We are in respectful agreement with the views expressed by the Gujarat High Court, Patna High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court in the cases cited above. The assessee in the instant case did not raise any objection at any time before the ITO that the notice was not served on the assessee personally or was not served on the agent who was empowered to receive notices. The objection raised regarding the validity of service of notice has lost its significance when the assessee acted upon the notice, filed the return in pursuance of the reassessment proceedings. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal has come to the correct conclusion in holding that the notice under s. 148 of the Act was validly served on the assessee. We have already held, on the merits of the case, the addition made in the reassessment proceedings was justified. Accordingly, our answer to both the questions of law referred to us is in the affirmative and against the assessee. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.