https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789753 Service of the notice initiating reassessment was treated as a jurisdictional prerequisite, and the reassessment failed because notice under section 148 was not effectively served at the assessee's recorded address. The reopening was also invalid because it rested on incorrect AIR assumptions that the assessee had not filed a return and was a non-PAN holder, even though the original return disclosed the property sale, capital gains computation and section 54 claim; the approval under section 151 was likewise found uninformed. On merits, no escapement of income was established because the transaction had already been disclosed in the original return, so the reassessment and consequential addition were set aside. en-us Thu, 12 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Apr 2026 08:03:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789753 Service of the notice initiating reassessment was treated as a jurisdictional prerequisite, and the reassessment failed because notice under section 148 was not effectively served at the assessee's recorded address. The reopening was also invalid because it rested on incorrect AIR assumptions that the assessee had not filed a return and was a non-PAN holder, even though the original return disclosed the property sale, capital gains computation and section 54 claim; the approval under section 151 was likewise found uninformed. On merits, no escapement of income was established because the transaction had already been disclosed in the original return, so the reassessment and consequential addition were set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 12 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789753