https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187875 Proper service of the reassessment notice under section 34 was a condition precedent to valid jurisdiction, and service on the assessee's son did not satisfy that requirement on the facts. The later affixture was also not shown to comply with the legal requirements for substituted service under section 63 read with the Civil Procedure Code, so the defect in service went to the validity of the reassessment itself. No conscious and intentional waiver of the objection was established. The reassessment was therefore held invalid and could not stand. en-us Tue, 29 Aug 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Nov 2016 12:09:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187875 Proper service of the reassessment notice under section 34 was a condition precedent to valid jurisdiction, and service on the assessee's son did not satisfy that requirement on the facts. The later affixture was also not shown to comply with the legal requirements for substituted service under section 63 read with the Civil Procedure Code, so the defect in service went to the validity of the reassessment itself. No conscious and intentional waiver of the objection was established. The reassessment was therefore held invalid and could not stand. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 29 Aug 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187875