Judgment :- 1. We find as a matter of routine, service of notice on unserved respondent who is no other than the assessee in all these appeals by the revenue, which have already been admitted are being effected only through a paper publication, even without having recourse to other possible modes of service of notice. 2. Any Income Tax Appeal, involves only the question of tax liability of an assessee as to whether the assessee should have paid some more tax or was not liable to pay as much tax! 3. In a situation of this nature, even if the Revenue should succeed in its appeal before this court, until and unless the respondent assessee is available, there is no way of recovering of such tax, due to the State. The Commissioner who is either unable or is not keen on taking steps for effecting service of notice on an assessee even at the admission stage, whether can be expected to recover taxes due to the State, is a moot question! 4. It reflects on the inability or incompetence of the Commissioner, as such is the development and as a matter of routine. 5. This is an appeal where for effecting service on the respondent assessee a paper publication has already taken place under the shelter of the order passed by this court on 17.08.2010. 6. We find the respondent in this case, is a limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, an Indian company M/s. Happy Farms and Resorts Ltd. 7. If the Income Tax Department is unable to take out notice on this company even at the admission of the appeal, we are at a loss to understand as to what better deeds the Income Tax Department would achieve on behalf of the Union of India, for whose benefit they exist and for whose benefit income tax is levied and collected! 8. While for the purpose of record, service of notice on the respondent through paper publication though could have been held as sufficient, we find yet another defect in the presentation of the appeal, filed against a company which is not represented by any human agency and there is no person in whose name the case could be called out today before the Court. 9. 9. There is no response to the calling of the name of the respondent Company, in the Court Hall by the Court official under such circumstances, we cannot possibly hold service of notice on the respondent, as sufficient. 10. It is for the appellant-Commissioner to set right the defect in the presentation of the appeal within a week’s time and also to ensure necessary steps are taken for ensuring effecting service of notice on the respondent-assessee as the appeal is already admitted on 02.03.2007. 11. Service of notice on the assessee by all modes of service permitted, including through hand summons if a request is filed in the Registry. We also find public money is unnecessary wasted by the I.T. department by resorting to the paper publication method of service of nature on an assessee as a matter of routine incurring considerable avoidable and unnecessary expenditure towards the cost of advertisement in newspapers. 12. Under such circumstances, we are constrained to direct the appellant-Commissioner of Income Tax, to file a report before this court furnishing information as to the amount of expenditure incurred by the Income Tax Department for effecting service of notice on the respondent-assessee for the past three years from today. Ordered accordingly. 13. Furnish a copy of this order free of cost to Mr. Arvind, learned standing counsel for the Income Tax Department. Report to be placed before the court in two weeks’ time.