https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283556 The Court set aside the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal solely on the ground of delay in filing. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof regarding the service of the order should be on the Revenue, not the assessee. The Tribunal's presumption of service based on dispatch details was deemed insufficient without concrete proof of delivery. The case was remitted back to the Tribunal for a decision on the merits, stressing the importance of correctly placing the burden of proof on the party responsible for proving service of legal orders. en-us Mon, 02 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Sep 2019 14:24:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283556 The Court set aside the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal solely on the ground of delay in filing. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof regarding the service of the order should be on the Revenue, not the assessee. The Tribunal's presumption of service based on dispatch details was deemed insufficient without concrete proof of delivery. The case was remitted back to the Tribunal for a decision on the merits, stressing the importance of correctly placing the burden of proof on the party responsible for proving service of legal orders. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 02 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283556