https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27186 Reassessment under section 147(a) was upheld because material from seized duplicate accounts showed escapement of income in the relevant accounting year falling in assessment year 1953-54. Notice under section 148 was also held valid, as the omission to describe the assessee expressly as karta of the erstwhile Hindu undivided family did not make the notice vague when it clearly required a return for HUF income. A defect in service of the demand notice on the assessee alone did not vitiate the assessment, since such defect does not affect assessment validity and tax recovery could proceed against him. All questions were answered in favour of the Revenue. en-us Wed, 23 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:01:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27186 Reassessment under section 147(a) was upheld because material from seized duplicate accounts showed escapement of income in the relevant accounting year falling in assessment year 1953-54. Notice under section 148 was also held valid, as the omission to describe the assessee expressly as karta of the erstwhile Hindu undivided family did not make the notice vague when it clearly required a return for HUF income. A defect in service of the demand notice on the assessee alone did not vitiate the assessment, since such defect does not affect assessment validity and tax recovery could proceed against him. All questions were answered in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 23 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27186