S.P. KAPUR, J.M. These are cross appeals, by assessee and Revenue. assessee is in appeal for asst. yrs. 19 69-70, 19 70-71, 19 72-73 and 19 73- 74 while Revenue is in appeal for asst. yrs. 19 71-72, 19 74-75 and 19 75-76. issue involved in all seven years under appeal is common, viz., levy of penalty under s. 18(1) (a) of WT Act, 19 57 ('the Act'). facts of case as also reasoning of learned lower authorities and stand of parties being common and learned first appellate authority having disposed of all appeals by common order and more so, common paper book having been placed on our file also, as of compulsion and for sake of convenience, we are disposing of all appeals by this common order. 2. following table will give background facts : Effect Dates Due of order on which Assessment date for Penalty of returns year filing of imposed Rs. learned first have been return appellate filed authority 31st 31st Penalty 19 69-70 July, 19 1,12,400 Dec., 19 75 upheld 69 31st 31st Penalty 19 70-71 July, 19 78,980 Dec., 19 75 upheld 70 31st 31st Penalty 19 71-72 July, 19 41,860 Dec., 19 75 cancelled 71 31st 31st Penalty 19 72-73 July, 19 58,840 Dec., 19 75 upheld 72 31st 31st Penalty 19 73-74 July, 19 28,620 Dec., 19 75 upheld 73 31st 31st Penalty 19 74-75 July, 19 16,730 Dec., 19 75 cancelled 74 31st 31st Penalty 19 75-76 July, 19 4,520 Dec., 19 75 cancelled 75 stand of assessee before be learned lower authorities can be summed up as under : (i) No notice dt. 19 th Feb., 19 81 fixing date of hearing of penalties on 6th March, 19 81 was ever served on assessee. (ii) wealth-tax returns were filed under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme of Wealth-tax, 19 75 and, accordingly, assessee was entitled to grant of immunity under above scheme with regard to late filing of returns. (iii) Alleged notices under s. 17 of Act issued for asst. yrs. 19 69-70, 19 70-71, 19 72-73 and 19 73-74 were never served on assessee. (iv) penalty orders are bad in law since these are not speaking orders and do, in no way, establish default of assessee. learned AAC observed that WTO does not mention in penalty orders as to how immunity for late filing to wealth-tax return was not given to t h e assessee and his finding on other contentions raised on behalf of assessee are to following effects : (i) assessee has admitted that show-cause notices issued on 23rd March, 19 79 were duly served on him. (ii) That notices for date of hearing fixed for 6th March, 19 81 have been duly served by affixture on 3rd March, 19 81. (iii) That WTO had already initiated assessment proceedings under s. 14/17 of Act for various years under appeal requiring assessee to file his net wealth-tax returns. learned AAC detailed these notices as under : Date of issue of Served "Assessment Date Date notice on and year of issue of service year of issue of service under s. remarks 14/17 9th 24th Served Notice 19 69-70 Jan., 19 Jan., 19 on Shri Guru under s. 17 73 73 Dutt Served on Shri Guru Dutt 9th 24th Notice *Statements 19 70-71 Jan., 19 Jan., 19 under s. 17 accompanying 73 73 returns signed by same person No 19 71-72 notice issued Served on Shri Guru Dutt 8th 24th Notice Statement 19 72-73 Jan., 19 Jan., 19 under s. 14 accompanying 73 73 return signed by same person Shri Arun Talwar. Notice 9th 10th Statement 19 73-74 under s. Jan., 19 Jan., 19 accompanying 14(2) 74 74 return signed by Shri Guru Dutt. No 19 74-75 notice issued No 19 75-76 notice issued" He yet further held that there should be no dispute for asst. yr. 19 73- 74 since notice has been served on assessee's son, Shri Arun Talwar. About asst. yrs. 19 67-68 and 19 68-69 (which years are not subject matters of appeal) he observed that assessments were completed on 30th March, 19 73 and one Shri Guru Dutt had represented assessee for both years and it w s only on 24th Feb., 19 79 that WTO received telegram from assessee informing WTO that Shri Guru Dutt Sharma was not authorised to represent assessee. learned AAC, as such, held that notices served on Shri Guru Dutt Sharma and assessee's son Shri Arun Talwar were valid since service of notices on these two persons was in accordance with law. notices alleged to have been issued by Department under s. 14/17 for asst. yrs. 19 69-70, 19 70-71 and 19 72-73 were held to be legal. For asst. yrs. 19 71-72, 19 74-75 and 19 75-76, learned AAC held that no notices have been issued and accordingly assessee was entitled to claim of immunity under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme and no penalty was leviable. Penalties for these assessment years, viz., 19 71-72, 19 74-75 and 19 75-76 were cancelled by learned AAC. For these years Revenue is in appeal while for other four years where penalties have been sustained, assessee is in appeal. About claim of immunity under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme learned AAC held that immunity was to be available to assessee if no notice has been served on assessee before 8th Oct., 19 75 for filing of return of net wealth for any assessment year either under s. 14 or under s. 17 and since he held that for asst. yr. 19 73-74 as also for asst. yrs. 19 69- 70, 19 70-71 and 19 72-73, notices were served validly penalties for these years were upheld and assessee is aggrieved. 3. With above facts as background parties being in appeal, we have heard learned authorised representatives at length. Assessee's paper book (18 pages) has been duly noted which,inter alia, contain copy of letter dt. 18th Nov., 19 72 addressed to ITO-cum-WTO, Distt. VI (2), New Delhi, and it is addressed by one Shri Guru Dutt Sharma and reads as under : 18th Nov., 19 72 "To ITO-cum-WTO, Distt. VI(2), New Delhi. Sir, Reg : Wealth-tax notice under s. 16(4) in matter of Hukam Chand Contractor 59/20, Prabhat Road, New Delhi. assessee has alleged that he had already filed wealth-tax return for asst. yr. 19 65-66 and being very old man he has misplaced that figures and he has deposited wealth-tax under s. 15B. Further I beg to inform you that power of attorney regarding wealth-tax assessment have been given to me. I again request you to send notice direct to him. I am returning same in original to your goodself. Thanking you. Yours faithfully, Guru Dutt Sharma." Encl - 1. Self-assessment payments relating to asst. yrs. 19 69-70 and 19 70-71 has been placed on our file as assessee's paper book pages 10 and 11. These have been relied upon for purposes of proving factum of assessee having filed original returns of net wealth. Original assessment records were also produced for our perusal by learned Departmental Representative and this fact stands verified from records also. So once it is so, i.e., that original returns stood filed under s. 14(1) for asst. yrs. 19 69-70 and 19 70-71, it has to be held thatquathe returns of net wealth filed by assessee for these two years on 31st Dec., 19 75, i.e., under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, assessee is entitled to immunity for belated filing of returnvis-a-visthe difference in net wealth declared in original returns filed and net wealth returned in returns filed under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme on 31st Dec., 19 75. In view of these penalties sustained by learned first appellate authority for these two years were not justified either on facts or in law. On this short ground penalties for these two years stand cancelled. 4 . next point made out by learned authorised representatives of assessee before us is about validity as also legality of notices claimed by Department to have been served on assessee for all four years,viz., 19 69-70, 19 70-71, 19 72-73 and 19 73-74. There is no controversy about finding of learned first appellate authority that for asst. yrs. 19 69-70, 19 70-71, and 19 72-73 notices were served on one Shri Guru Dutt Sharma while for asst. yr. 19 73-74 notice was served on assessee's son, Shri Arun Talwar. learned AAC further mentions that in relation to asst. yr. 19 70-71 statements accompanying return was also signed by Shri Guru Dutt Sharma and so is case for asst. yr. 19 72-73. For asst. yr. 19 73-74 notice was served on assessee's son, Shri Arun Talwar, but statement accompanying return was signed by Shri Guru Dutt Sharma. 5. short controversy, as such, boils down to us to whether on facts and in circumstances of case, when notices have been served for three years on one Shri Guru Dutt Sharma and for fourth year on Shri Arun Talwar, notices could be said to be valid and legal under provisions of Act ? 6. Sec. 41 of Act deals with topic 'service of notice' and it reads as under : "(1) notice or requisition under this Act may be served on person therein named either by post or as if it were summons issued by Court under CPC, 19 8 (5 of 19 8). (2) Any such notice or requisition may, in case of firm or HUF, be addressed to any member of firm or to manager or any adult male member of family, and in case of any other AOPs be addressed to principal officer thereof. (3) After finding of total partition has been recorded by WTO under s. 20 in respect of any Hindu family, notices under this Act in respect of net wealth of Hindu family, or, if such person is dead, then on all surviving adults were members of Hindu family immediately before partition." 7. bare reading of above is sufficient enough to hold that notice or requisition under Act is to be served on person therein named. service can be by post or as if it were summons issued by Court under CPC, 19 8. Primarily alleged notices under s. 17 having not been served on person therein named findings has to be in favour of assessee, i.e., that notices served on Shri Guru Dutt Sharma and Shri Arun Talwar, assessee's son, were not legal and valid notices till such time it shown that these two gentlemen were authorised by assessee to receive such notices. perusal of assessment records as already mentioned in body of order, which were produced before us for our perusal do not contain any such authority given by assessee to either of these two gentlemen and accordingly service of notices has to be held as unauthorised one that is illegal and invalid and if it is so then it has to be further held that is illegal and invalid and if it is so then it has to be further held that no notices under s. 17 were served on assessee for these assessment years and immunity available to assessee under Voluntary Disclosure Schemevis-a-visreturns filed on 31st Dec., 19 75 was available and penalties for late filing of returns for these years were not exigible. We hold and direct accordingly and for sake of fortification we give hereunder extract fromMohammed Idrees Barry & Co. vs. CIT ( 19 57) 32 ITR 180 (Lahore). circumstances that person not authorised to receive notice, has on some prior occasions accepted service and signed acknowledgment and in pursuance thereof, produced before WTO some account books of assessee for inspection, would not make service upon such unauthorised person valid so as to be binding on assessee. Particularly when prejudice will be caused to assessee by holding that service on unauthorised person is valid. 8. Since notices served for these four years under s. 17 have been held by us to be not valid and legal servicevis-a-visthe person named therein, i.e., assessee, penalties for these years stand cancelled. assessee is held to be entitled to immunity under provisions of Voluntary Disclosure Scheme for belatedly filing of returns for these years of 31st Dec., 19 75. 9 . As regards revenue's appeals, in categorical finding of learned first appellate authority that for asst. yr. 19 71-72 as also for asst. yrs. 19 74-75 and 19 75-76, no notices under s. 17 have been served, Revenue's appeals are held to be devoid of any force, since no material has been placed before us to controvert above finding of fact. 10. In net result, assessee's appeals for asst. yrs. 19 69-70, 19 70-71, 19 72-73 and 19 73-74 succeed and stand allowed while revenue's appeals for asst. yrs. 19 71-72, 19 74-75 and 19 75-76 fail and stand dismissed. *** HUKAM CHAND TALWAR v. WEALTH-TAX OFFICER