Limitation for reassessment notice must be met under the governing provision; a different notice cannot extend jurisdiction.

Reassessment under section 12 required notice to be issued within the limitation period fixed by section 12(2), and the applicable limitation was the one in force on the date of notice. A notice issued on 16 June 1992 was stated to be time-barred for the relevant assessment year, so the reassessment could not be sustained. An earlier notice under section 17 did not cure the defect because it served a different statutory purpose and was not equivalent to notice under section 12. Timely notice was therefore treated as a condition precedent to jurisdiction, and the reassessment was without authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether notice issued for reopening of assessment under section 12(1) was within the period of limitation prescribed by section 12(2), and whether an earlier notice under section 17 could save the limitation for reassessment.

Analysis: The reassessment power under section 12 could be exercised only if notice was issued within the statutory period fixed by section 12(2). The limitation applicable on the date of issue of notice governed the matter, and for the relevant assessment year the notice issued on 16 June 1992 was beyond the permissible period. The earlier notice under section 17 was for a different statutory purpose and in a different form, and therefore did not amount to compliance with the notice requirement under section 12. Since timely notice was a condition precedent to assumption of jurisdiction, the reassessment was without authority.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice was barred by limitation and the reassessment proceedings could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice for reassessment must be issued within the limitation prescribed for that reassessment provision, and a notice issued under a different provision for rectification does not satisfy or extend that limitation.

---