Time-barred revision order: Revenue must prove the order was actually passed on the stated date.

A revision order under section 263 was treated as time-barred because the Revenue failed to prove that it was actually passed on the date it bore. The Tribunal held that the despatch register alone was insufficient, as it did not reliably show when the order left the control of the revisional authority or was handed over for despatch. In the absence of corroborative records explaining the delay, the burden of proving timely passing of the order was not discharged, and the presumption of regularity was not applied. The revision order and the consequential assessment were therefore held invalid under section 263(2).

---

---

Issues: Whether the revision order passed under section 263 was barred by limitation because it was not shown to have been made on the date it bore.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the surrounding circumstances and the material produced by the Revenue to determine whether the order had been passed on the subscribed date. The despatch register alone was treated as insufficient, since it did not satisfactorily establish when the order left the control of the revisionary authority or when it was actually handed over for despatch. In the absence of corroborative records explaining the delay and in view of the Revenue's failure to discharge the burden of proving timely passing of the order, the statutory presumption of regularity was not applied. The Tribunal drew an adverse inference from the absence of reliable evidence.

Conclusion: The revision order was held to be not passed on 31 March 2015 and was therefore time-barred under section 263(2); the revision and the consequential assessment were invalid.

---