Mandatory notice and limitation control fresh tax proceedings; appellate authority cannot confer jurisdiction by general direction.

A rectification order passed without the mandatory notice and opportunity of hearing under the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939 was rightly set aside, but the appellate authority could not issue a blanket direction for fresh proceedings. Such a directive could not confer jurisdiction on the assessing authority where none existed, and the legality of any fresh assessment had to be tested independently under law, including limitation. The direction for fresh proceedings was therefore invalid, and the questions were answered in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority could, after setting aside a rectification order passed without notice and hearing, direct the assessing authority to initiate a fresh proceeding, and whether such a direction could validly be made without considering the question of limitation.

Analysis: The rectification order under the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939 had been passed without complying with the mandatory requirement of notice and opportunity of being heard. While the setting aside of that order was justified, the appellate authority could not issue a blanket direction for fresh proceedings in a manner that would confer jurisdiction on the assessing authority where none existed. The question whether a fresh assessment was barred by limitation was a matter that had to be examined according to law and could not be overridden by a general directive from the appellate forum.

Conclusion: The direction for fresh proceedings was invalid and the questions referred were answered in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate authority cannot, by a general direction, confer jurisdiction on the assessing authority to commence fresh proceedings, particularly where the legality of such proceedings may be affected by limitation and the mandatory requirements of notice and hearing have not been met.

---