Jurisdictional facts for reopening must be shown on record before a tax notice can survive judicial challenge.

A reopening notice under section 16(1) of the Gift-tax Act could not be sustained where the assessee challenged the existence of the jurisdictional facts and the Revenue failed to place any affidavit, return, or supporting material on record to show the reasons to believe or the conditions precedent for reopening. The Court held that, once such foundational facts are disputed on oath, the issuing authority must produce the relevant material to justify the notice. In the absence of any such disclosure, the challenge could not be rejected and the notice was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice issued under section 16(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, was sustainable in the absence of any affidavit or material by the Revenue showing the existence of the conditions precedent for reopening.

Analysis: The challenge to the notice was specifically directed to the existence of reasons to believe and the foundational facts enabling action under section 16. Despite repeated opportunities, the Revenue did not file any return, affidavit, or supporting documents to disclose the reasons or material relied upon. Where the assessee challenges the existence of the jurisdictional facts on oath, the authority issuing the notice must satisfy the Court by placing relevant material on record. In the absence of such material, the challenge cannot be rejected and the notice cannot be sustained.

Conclusion: The notice under section 16(1) was invalid and was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A reopening or reassessment notice based on a statutory prerequisite cannot survive when the authority fails to place before the Court the material establishing the jurisdictional facts or conditions precedent for its issue.

---