Dismissing the appeal of the Revenue  the Court held that despite being informed that the assessee was in judicial custody the Principal Commissioner did not make efforts to serve the notice upon him through the Superintendent of the jail. Any officer of the Government including a Principal Commissioner should be conscious that once information was received that a person to whom notice had to be served was in judicial custody, an appropriate order should have been passed requiring service of notice on such person through the Superintendent of the jail. This was the bare minimum requirement in law. With the Principal Commissioner having failed to do so, the Department could not contend that mere appearance of a staff of the assessee in judicial custody should be taken to be the appearance by the assessee himself. Notice under section 263 by speed post to the last known address of the assessee did not amount to valid service. No question of law arose.(AY.2009-10 to 2015-16)