The petitioner, a senior citizen with modest income, challenged reassessment proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department based on allegedly erroneous information furnished by Union Bank of India (respondent no. 4), which reported a term deposit of Rs. 12,50,00,000/- (Twelve Crore Fifty Lakhs) against the petitioner's actual deposit of only Rs. 12,50,000/-. The petitioner argued that the show-cause notice under Section 148A(b), the order under Section 148A(d), and the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were illegal, beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 149, and issued in violation of the mandatory faceless assessment procedure under Section 151A read with CBDT Notification No. 18/2022. The petitioner further contended that since the actual escaped income was only Rs. 17,84,197/- (well below Rs. 50,00,000/-), the extended ten-year limitation window under Section 149(1)(b) was inapplicable, rendering the notice void ab initio. Consequential penalty orders under Sections 271(1)(b), 271F, and 271(1)(c) were also challenged as flowing from the illegal reassessment. The judgment text provided is incomplete and does not record the final decision of the Patna High Court.