Held that  service of notice by way of affixture at a wrong address is not in conformity with the manner contemplated in Section 282 of the Act r.w. Order V-Rule 17 and Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) as the same is not witnessed by an independent witness-The service of notice to the assessee’s counsel for the first time in the month of February-2016 is much beyond the prescribed period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Held that the AO had invalidly assumed the jurisdiction for reopening the concluded assessment.  Tribunal also held that the letters raising the objections against the validity of the service of notice were produced before the ITAT as well the records / entries available in the order sheet held  for the limited purposes to verify the factual position as to whether the objections raised by the assessee through the letters referred or not, the ITAT restored the matter to the file of the AO for the limitation purpose of making necessary verifications. (AY. 2008-09)