Strict compliance with reassessment notice requirements invalidated the notice, nullified the assessment, and defeated waiver

A notice for reassessment under section 25 of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act must strictly comply with the statutory notice requirements, including allowing at least thirty days to furnish the return; a notice requiring compliance by the next day was invalid. Because a valid notice is a condition precedent to reassessment, the defective notice deprived the authority of jurisdiction and the resulting assessment could not stand. Mere filing of a return in response to the notice did not amount to waiver, since waiver requires clear proof of intentional relinquishment of a known right, which was not shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a notice issued under section 25 of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act is valid when it requires the assessee to file the return on the next day instead of specifying a period of not less than thirty days; (ii) Whether an assessment made pursuant to such a notice is illegal; (iii) Whether filing a return in response to the notice amounts to waiver of the defect in the notice.

Issue (i): Whether a notice issued under section 25 of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act is valid when it requires the assessee to file the return on the next day instead of specifying a period of not less than thirty days.

Analysis: Section 25 incorporates the requirements of a notice under section 15(3). A notice under section 15(3) is not complete unless it requires the assessee to furnish the return within a period specified in the notice, and that period must not be less than thirty days. The statutory scheme, including the penalty consequence for failure to file in due time, shows that the period for compliance is an essential part of the notice.

Conclusion: The notice was invalid and not in accordance with section 25.

Issue (ii): Whether an assessment made pursuant to such a notice is illegal.

Analysis: A valid notice under section 25 is a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction for reassessment of escaped or under-assessed income. Where the initiating notice is invalid, the jurisdiction to complete the reassessment does not arise, and the resulting assessment cannot stand in law.

Conclusion: The assessment was illegal.

Issue (iii): Whether filing a return in response to the notice amounts to waiver of the defect in the notice.

Analysis: Waiver requires intentional relinquishment of a known right and awareness of the objectionable defect. Mere compliance with the notice by filing a return does not by itself establish knowledge of the right to object or an intention to abandon it, and no facts were shown to prove such waiver.

Conclusion: There was no waiver of the defect in the notice.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that the notice was invalid, the assessment made on its basis could not survive, and the assessee did not waive the defect.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute makes a valid notice a condition precedent to reassessment, the notice must strictly comply with the statutory requirements, and waiver of a notice defect can be inferred only from clear proof of intentional relinquishment of a known right.

---