Strict notice compliance is mandatory for reassessment; defective reopening notice without statutory time vitiates the entire proceedings.

Reassessment under section 35 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act was invalid because the precondition notice did not comply with section 17(2), including the statutory minimum time for filing a return. The High Court treated proper notice as a condition precedent to the jurisdiction to reopen assessment, and held that notices granting only five and seven days were legally defective. A later opportunity to object could not cure a jurisdictional defect. The reassessment proceedings were therefore void, and the assessment and revisional orders were quashed in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings initiated under section 35 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 were invalid for want of a notice complying with the requirements of section 17(2) of the Act.

Analysis: Section 35(1) required the assessing authority to serve a notice before reopening assessment, and that notice had to incorporate the requirements of section 17(2), including the minimum period for filing a return. The notice was therefore a condition precedent to the valid exercise of jurisdiction under section 35. The notices issued in the present cases granted only five and seven days respectively, which did not satisfy the statutory minimum. A subsequent opportunity to file objections could not cure the defect, because the defect went to jurisdiction and not merely procedure.

Conclusion: The notices under section 35 were invalid, the reassessment proceedings founded on them were illegal and void, and the impugned assessment and revisional orders were quashed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice prescribed as a condition precedent for reassessment must strictly comply with the statutory requirements governing its issuance and time for response; failure to do so deprives the authority of jurisdiction and vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings.

---