Valid reassessment notice requires proper legal capacity; a defective section 34 notice cannot confer jurisdiction or be cured by participation.

Service of a valid notice under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was treated as a condition precedent to jurisdiction for reassessment. A notice not expressly issued to the legal representative of a deceased assessee was held invalid because it was not addressed in the proper legal capacity. Participation in the proceedings or filing a return could not cure that fundamental defect or confer jurisdiction where none existed. The defect went to the root of the reassessment proceedings, so the reassessment founded on the defective notice was illegal and void.

---

---

Issues: Whether a notice under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which did not expressly state that it was issued to the legal representative of a deceased assessee, was valid and whether the reassessment made in pursuance of such notice was legally sustainable.

Analysis: Service of the requisite notice under section 34 was treated as a condition precedent to the Income-tax Officer's jurisdiction to reopen and complete reassessment. The notice in question was held to be invalid because it was not issued in the proper legal capacity, and participation in the proceedings or filing of a return could not cure the fundamental defect or confer jurisdiction where none existed. The defect was not a mere procedural irregularity but one going to the root of the reassessment proceedings.

Conclusion: The notice under section 34 was not issued according to law, and the reassessment based on that notice was illegal and void. The answer was therefore in the negative, in favour of the petitioner.

---