Invalid reassessment notice under income-tax law cannot confer jurisdiction, and participation by the assessee does not cure the defect.

A notice issued under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 must comply with the time requirement imported from section 22(2) and allow not less than thirty days for the return. A notice granting only six days is invalid and cannot confer jurisdiction to reopen escaped income. Where the notice itself is void, reassessment proceedings founded on it are also void, and the defect is jurisdictional rather than procedural. The assessee's compliance with the notice and failure to object at the assessment stage do not cure the want of jurisdiction or validate the resulting assessment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a notice issued under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 requiring return within less than thirty days was valid in law. (ii) Whether proceedings taken pursuant to an invalid notice under section 34 were void notwithstanding the assessee's compliance and failure to object at the assessment stage.

Issue (i): Whether a notice issued under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 requiring return within less than thirty days was valid in law.

Analysis: Section 34 incorporates by reference the requirements of section 22(2), which specifies that the assessee must be allowed a period of not less than thirty days to furnish the return. A notice under section 34 that grants only six days does not satisfy that statutory requirement. The notice is therefore not a valid notice under section 34 and cannot confer jurisdiction to reassess escaped income.

Conclusion: The notice was invalid in law.

Issue (ii): Whether proceedings taken pursuant to an invalid notice under section 34 were void notwithstanding the assessee's compliance and failure to object at the assessment stage.

Analysis: The requirement of a valid notice under section 34 is a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction. A defect going to the root of jurisdiction is not a mere procedural irregularity, and consent or omission to object cannot confer jurisdiction where none exists. Compliance with an invalid notice and participation in the assessment proceedings do not cure the initial want of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The proceedings and assessment were void in law.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that the short-notice issued under section 34 was invalid and that the resulting reassessment proceedings were unsustainable, with costs awarded against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 must satisfy the statutory time requirement imported from section 22(2), and a notice that fails to do so is a jurisdictional defect that cannot be waived by the assessee.

---