Invalid service of notice and absence of mandatory section 143(2) notice rendered reassessment proceedings unsustainable.

Reassessment proceedings were held unsustainable because notice was not validly served at the assessee's correct address and no notice under section 143(2) had been issued. Service by affixture at an address where the proprietary concern had already shifted and later closed was treated as defective, particularly when the correct address was available from bank records but not used. On these unrebutted facts, the reassessment could not be sustained and the assessment was quashed without examining the additions on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment proceedings were vitiated for want of valid service of notice and absence of notice under section 143(2), warranting quashing of the assessment.

Analysis: The assessee had filed the return for the year under consideration and the record showed that no notice under section 143(2) had been issued. The notices initiating reassessment were served only by affixture at an address where the assessee's proprietary concern had already shifted and later closed. The correct address was available from the bank records, yet it was not used. On these unrebutted facts, the service was held to be defective and the reassessment proceedings could not be sustained. Since the proceedings themselves were invalid, there was no necessity to examine the additions on merits.

Conclusion: The reassessment was invalid and the assessment proceedings were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment proceedings are unsustainable where notice is not validly served at the correct address and the mandatory notice under section 143(2) is absent.

---