Question of law involved in High Court  was challenging the notices issued u/s. 148 and notice not served in accordance to law and whether assessee was resident of India within the meaning of S. 6(3)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. On appeal in High, by revenue, Hon’ble High Court  allowed Department’s appeal and held that Rattan Gupta and Co Chartered Accountant  was not only doing the audit work of the five assessee companies but determining who should be the directors of the said companies, this coupled with the fact that the blank signed cheque books of all the five companies together with rubber seals, the letterhead, the blank signed cheques and other records were also found in Delhi office of Rattan Gupta and Co Chartered Accountant   the factual determination by the AO that the management and control of five companies was actually wholly situated in Delhi gets fortified, there were sufficient grounds for exercising the power u/s. 148, there was an implied authority of RG r/w. order V r.20 CPC. The Court also held that there were sufficient grounds for exercising the power u/s. 148, plea of the assessee that the notices u/s. 142(1) & 143(2) were issued for the first time in 1998 and were time barred was rejected. On appeal Supreme Court affirmed the order of the High Court.   High Court held  that no income by way of commission, as claimed by the assessees, had been established and proved by the assessees. In fact, the Assessing Officer issued notices or summons to different persons who had allegedly paid amounts as commission, but those persons had not responded. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had rightly drawn an adverse inference. The assessees did not produce any worthwhile evidence to prove the genuineness of the commission received. Once the Assessing Officer issued summons under section 131 to those who had allegedly paid the commission to the assessees and the summons were not complied with and it was the assertion on behalf of the assessees that they earned the income of commission within Sikkim, the burden to prove that was upon the assessees, wrongly and erroneously shifted by the Tribunal upon the Assessing Officer to prove the contrary. Therefore, in the absence of any material on record that the commission was earned only in Gangtok, the assessees could not be permitted to say that they were liable to pay the tax under the Sikkim Manual, 1948 and not under the 1961 Act. Order of High Court, affirmed.  Liable to tax in India  Working in ITNS 150 forming part of assessment order was proper.   (AY. 1987-88 to 1989-90)