Mandatory service of section 143(2) notice not proved, so the assessment based on it was invalid.

Service of notice under section 143(2) within the prescribed limitation is mandatory, and where the assessee disputes receipt the Revenue must prove valid service. Dispatch by registered post was insufficient here because the postal record raised doubts about the correct address, lacked clear particulars of the addressee, and did not show the date of delivery. In the absence of a reliable presumption of service under section 27 of the General Clauses Act or section 114 of the Evidence Act, service was not proved within time. The assessment based on that notice was therefore invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment could be sustained when service of notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 within the prescribed limitation period was not proved.

Analysis: The limitation for service of notice under section 143(2) is mandatory. The Department relied on dispatch by registered post and on statutory presumptions of service, but the record showed serious doubts about the correct address, no clear name or address of the addressee on the postal material, and no mention of the date of delivery. Since the assessee specifically disputed receipt, the burden lay on the Revenue to establish valid service within time. In the circumstances, no reliable presumption under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 or section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was available, and the service requirement was not proved.

Conclusion: The notice under section 143(2) was not validly served within time, the assessment based on such notice was invalid, and the assessee succeeded on the legal issue.

---