https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361158 Reassessment proceedings were held to be without jurisdiction because the foundational notice under section 148 was issued by an officer at Mumbai, while the assessee fell within the jurisdiction of the Dehradun Assessing Officer under the applicable jurisdictional notification. The notice was returned unserved and was not validly served within the limitation period, and the record also showed no transfer order under section 127 before the Dehradun officer proceeded with the matter. The defect went to jurisdiction and could not be cured by later proceedings or by notices issued under section 142(1). The reassessment orders were therefore unsustainable. en-us Fri, 25 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 May 2018 10:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361158 Reassessment proceedings were held to be without jurisdiction because the foundational notice under section 148 was issued by an officer at Mumbai, while the assessee fell within the jurisdiction of the Dehradun Assessing Officer under the applicable jurisdictional notification. The notice was returned unserved and was not validly served within the limitation period, and the record also showed no transfer order under section 127 before the Dehradun officer proceeded with the matter. The defect went to jurisdiction and could not be cured by later proceedings or by notices issued under section 142(1). The reassessment orders were therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 25 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361158