Presumption of timely service of notice applies when registered post is sent within time and delayed delivery is not proved.

Service of notice under Section 143(2) was treated as proved within the statutory period because the notice was dispatched by registered post in time, attracting the presumption of service in the ordinary course under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and the permissive presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. The absence of contemporaneous protest, together with the failure to produce the envelope or reliable proof of delayed delivery, supported that presumption. Once the assessee claimed receipt only on a later date, the burden shifted to substantiate late service, and that burden was not discharged.

---

---

Issues: Whether service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was proved to have been effected within the statutory period, and whether the assessee discharged the burden of proving service only after expiry of limitation.

Analysis: The notice was dispatched by registered post within time, which attracted the statutory presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 that service would be effected in the ordinary course of post. The Court also relied on the permissive presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the surrounding circumstances, including the absence of contemporaneous protest by the assessee and the failure to produce the envelope or any reliable proof of delayed delivery. Once the assessee asserted receipt only on 1.9.1998, the burden shifted to him to substantiate that assertion, which he failed to do.

Conclusion: Service of notice within the prescribed period was proved, and the assessee failed to establish late service.

---