Tribunal held that the assessee was regularly assessed to tax, Since the AY 2003-04, he had been regularly filing the returns up to the AY 2018-19, at Kanpur and the address mentioned was a Kanpur address. If in the Income-tax records and in the permanent account number data base, the assessee’s address and the jurisdiction of the AO had been categorically given, then without verifying the address, the ITO could not issue a notice at a wrong address. The case was reopened mentioned wrong address on which notice had been sent, which, as brought out by the assessee was not an address at all. Tribunal held that, neither the notice u/s. 148 been served upon the assessee nor had been sent at the proper address. Accordingly in absence of any valid service of notice u/s. 148 which is the condition precedent for assuming the jurisdiction for reopening the case u/s. 147, the entire proceedings were void ab initio and to be held as null and void. (AY.2009-10)