Assessment appeals dismissed as time-barred, additional evidence refusal upheld, burden of proof met.

The court affirmed that the appeals filed by the assessee were barred by limitation as the assessment orders and demand notices were deemed to have been served on a specific date. Additionally, the Tribunal's refusal to accept additional evidence was upheld due to procedural deficiencies, and the burden of proof regarding the service of documents was held to have been met by the Department. The court ruled in favor of the Revenue on all three issues, affirming the Tribunal's decisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Limitation of the appeal filed by the assessee.
2. Refusal to entertain additional evidence by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
3. Burden of proof regarding the service of assessment orders/demand notices.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Limitation of the Appeal
The Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner both concluded that the assessment order and demand notices were served on the assessee on October 24, 1968. This finding was based on the affidavit of the then Income-tax Officer and other relevant material. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee on August 2, 1977, were deemed barred by limitation. The court affirmed this conclusion, answering the first question in the affirmative and against the assessee.

Issue 2: Refusal to Entertain Additional Evidence
The Tribunal refused to accept additional evidence submitted by the assessee, as it was not accompanied by any application or affidavit explaining its relevance or why it was not filed earlier. The Tribunal upheld the Department's objection based on rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, which stipulates conditions under which additional evidence may be admitted. The court found no error in the Tribunal's decision, stating that the refusal was not merely technical but substantive. The second question was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue.

Issue 3: Burden of Proof
The court held that the Department had sufficiently discharged its burden of proving that the assessment orders and demand notices were served on the assessee on October 24, 1968. The court rejected the assessee's contention that the process server and demand and collection register needed to be examined, stating that the burden of proof depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The third question was also answered in the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue.

Conclusion:
All three questions were answered in the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Tribunal's decisions on limitation, refusal to entertain additional evidence, and the burden of proof were upheld.

---