“Section 153(1)(c)”

An assessment order is time-barred if the department fails to prove that the order was dispatched within the prescribed period of limitation. The burden lies on the department to make the dispatch date available from records to establish timely issuance.

The case is cited for various issues including the definition of capital assets, reassessment procedures under sections 153A and 153C, and the effect of clarificatory amendments.

An assessment order that is not served on the assessee before the assessment's time-barring date is considered non-est, meaning it is void and without legal effect.

A notice is presumed to have been properly served if it is not returned as unserved, and objections regarding non-service are not acceptable in such cases.

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are not sustainable if the Assessing Officer has not recorded satisfaction regarding concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. Such satisfaction is a prerequisite for initiating penalty proceedings.

An assessment order dispatched after the prescribed time limit is time-barred and void, even if the dispatch date is before the period of limitation for service.

Service of a notice or requisition under the Income-tax Act must be made in accordance with Section 282(1), which allows for service by post or as if it were a summons under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Rules 12 to 15 of Order V of the CPC are relevant, emphasizing personal service where practicable.

The Revenue bears the burden of proving that a notice was duly served on the assessee or their authorized representative. If no valid notice is served within the prescribed period, the Income-Tax Officer lacks the authority to initiate reassessment proceedings.