VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

( 1 ) THE following substantial question of law arises in the present Appeal:-Whether ITAT was correct in holding that the Assessing Officer had not satisfactorily discharged the burden of proof resting on him vis-a-vis the service of Notice under Section 143 (2) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 within the statutory period prescribed under the said provision?

( 2 ) WE have heard arguments at great length on this sticky but significant question of law. This provision prescribes that no Notice shall be served on the Assessee after the expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which the Return is filed. In the present case, the Assessee filed his Return declaring an income of Rs. 41,98,800/- on 29. 8. 1997. The assessment Order was eventually framed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 23. 2. 2000 at Rs. 58,36,860/ -. Thus, notices served on the Appellant after 31. 8. 1998 would be devoid of legal efficacy by virtue of this proviso to the said sub-section. Undisputedly, the Notice issued by the AO was sent to the assessee on 25. 8. 1998 by Registered Post. The Assessee asserts that the notice was served on him on 1. 9. 1998, i. e. the day immediately after the expiry of the period envisaged by the sub-section. The AO had asked the assessee to produce documentary evidence that the Notice in question was indeed delivered only on 1. 9. 1998, but the Appellant failed to furnish any such evidence. This position has been admitted before us; it has been candidly stated that the Assessee had been "foolish" not to retain the envelope containing the said Notice. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [cit (A)] had initially remanded the matter back to the AO to verify the actual date of service from the Postal Authorities. It appears that in response to the action taken by the AO pursuant to the Reminder, the postal Authorities have stated that the records pertaining to the registered letters for the period August 1998 had been "weeded out".

( 3 ) MR. Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel for the Assessee, has vehemently contended that on an appreciation of the decision in commissioner of Income-Tax v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. , [2006] 281 itr 1 (Delhi) the Appeal filed by the Revenue must be dismissed forthwith. In that case, the ITAT had set aside the Assessment Order on the ground that Notice under Section 143 (2) of the Income-Tax Act had been served upon the Assessee beyond the period of one year prescribed by law. The division Bench expressed its doubts as to whether a Notice had at all been sent out to the Assessee since the envelope merely contained the name of the Assessee without its address; and that it was quite possible that the notice may have been sent to the Assessee at some wrong or even incomplete address. After taking into consideration an Affidavit filed by the Assessee stating that it had not received the Notice, this Court concluded that the burden that lay upon the CIT to prove that the Notice was served upon the assessee within the prescribed time period had not been satisfactorily discharged. Later, applying Lunar Diamond this Court had in ITA 1269/2006 entitled The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vardhman estates P. Ltd. dismissed the Appeal on 25. 9. 2006. In that case, the Notice was admittedly dispatched only one day before the expiry of the one year period.

( 4 ) IN R. L. Narang v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi, [1982] 136 ITR 108, it was held by this Court that provisions of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 are attracted wherever service by post is concerned. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act stipulates that wherever a Central Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post, then service shall be deemed to have been effected properly if a correctly addressed and stamped envelope containing the document is dispatched by registered Post; and that it would be a further presumption that the document has been delivered in the ordinary course of post. It is, no doub