The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, and the conditions precedent for admitting additional evidence at the appellate stage before the Tribunal.

A.N. Varma, J.

1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred for our opinion :

"1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the appeal filed by the applicant was barred by limitation ?

2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has not committed an error in refusing to entertain additional evidence on the technical ground as it was an important piece of evidence to decide the controversy ?

3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, it could legally be said that the Department had discharged its burden to prove by sufficient material that the service of the assessment orders/demand notices were made upon the applicant on October 24, 1968 ? "

2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and was, during the relevant time, carrying on sarafa business at Moth in the district of Jhansi under the name and style of Messrs. Jagannath Prasad Kanhaiyalal. The assessment years under consideration were 1956-57 to 1960-61 and 1964-65 to 1967-68. Tika Ram Yadav was the karta of the family. By a consolidated order dated October 9, 1968, the Income-tax Officer made an assessment of the income of the said firm in respect of the assessment years in question. On I.T.N.S.--51, the Income-tax Officer reported that the assessment order and demand notice had been served on the assessee on October 24,1968. Thereupon, recovery proceedings commenced somewhere in May, 1970, by the assessing Income-tax Officer, These proceedings were challenged by the assessee by way of a writ petition in this court being Writ Petition No. 29 of 1974. The recovery proceedings were challenged on the ground that neither the order of assessment nor any notice of demand had been served on the assessee and, consequently, the recovery proceedings were completely without jurisdiction. A counter-affidavit was filed by the Income-tax Officer wherein he categorically asserted that both the assessment order as well as the notice of demand had been served personally on Tika Ram on October 24, 1968. Thereafter, the said petition was dismissed as not pressed on the statement of learned counsel for the assessee by an order dated December 5, 1974, For the time being it is not necessary to elaborate the correspondence that ensued thereafter between the assessee and the Income-tax Officer concerned.

On August 2, 1977, the assessee filed nine appeals against the consolidated order of the Income-tax Officer dated October 9, 1968. On I.T.N.S. --51, the Income-tax Officer reported that as the assessment order and demand notice had been served on the appellant on October 24, 1968, the appeals filed on August 2, 1977, were clearly out of time. Thereupon, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant on September 6, 1978, which was replied to by the assessee's counsel, vide letter dated September 18, 1978, stating that his client had been asked to furnish proof of his old age and as the karta had expired, he be allowed one month's time for furnishing the necessary evidence explaining the delay. It was also asserted that the assessment orders were served only on July 24, 1977, and, therefore, the appeals filed on August 2, 1977, were within time. On February 22, 1979, another show-cause notice was issued in reply to which counsel for the assessed reiterated that the demand notices were served on, the assessee on July 24, 1977, and that the assessment order had not been served even when recovery proceedings were initiated in 1970. Thereupon the Income-tax Officer, Jhansi, was asked by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to explain the circumstances with regard to the service of the assessment order and demand notice on the assessee. The Income-tax Officer submitted a reply dated July 17, 1979, stating that both the assessment order and the demand notice had been duly served on the assessee on October 24, 1968. This fact was corrobo