Reassessment notice invalid where it curtailed the statutory minimum compliance period, rendering the reopening void.

A reassessment notice requiring an assessee to file a return within thirty days was invalid where the statute required a period of not less than thirty days. The phrase "within thirty days" was not treated as equivalent to the statutory minimum, and the defect was held to go to the root of jurisdiction. Filing a return in response did not cure the defect. Reassessment proceedings founded on such a notice were therefore void and liable to be quashed; the separate interest questions became academic and were not decided on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice issued for reassessment under section 148(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was invalid because it required the assessee to file the return within thirty days, and whether the reassessment proceedings based on such notice could stand.

Analysis: The statutory language required the assessee to be given a period of not less than thirty days to furnish the return. The notice, however, curtailed that period by directing filing within thirty days from service. The earlier and comparative statutory provisions and the judicial interpretation of the phraseology showed that "within thirty days" and "not less than thirty days" are not equivalent. The defect went to the root of jurisdiction, and filing of a return in response to the notice did not cure the defect.

Conclusion: The notice was invalid, and the reassessment proceedings founded on it were void and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the jurisdictional challenge to reopening, while the separate questions on interest became academic and were not decided on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute prescribes a minimum period for compliance with a reassessment notice, a notice granting a shorter period is invalid and vitiates all proceedings taken pursuant to it.

---