Mandatory notice for fresh return is a jurisdictional for reassessment; failure vitiates reassessment proceedings.

Under the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, reassessment for escaped income can proceed only after service of a notice containing the requirements of section 18(2), including a call for a fresh return. Because reopening is treated as a fresh proceeding, that notice is a jurisdictional precondition and not a mere procedural formality. No notice calling for a fresh return having been issued, the reassessment proceedings failed to satisfy the statutory condition precedent and were without jurisdiction. The reassessment orders and demand notices were therefore liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings under section 36 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 were invalid for want of a notice requiring a fresh return under section 18(2) of that Act.

Analysis: Section 36 requires that before assessment or reassessment for escaped income is taken up, the assessee must be served with a notice containing the requirements that may be included in a notice under section 18(2). The reopening of assessment is treated as setting aside the earlier assessment and commencing fresh proceedings. In such proceedings, the mandatory requirement of calling for a fresh return is integral to the assumption of jurisdiction. Since no notice calling for a fresh return was issued, the reassessment proceedings did not satisfy the statutory precondition. The reference to section 22(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 supported the conclusion that the procedural safeguard is mandatory and not optional.

Conclusion: The reassessment orders and demand notices were without jurisdiction and were liable to be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute makes service of a notice calling for a fresh return a condition precedent to reassessment, failure to comply with that requirement vitiates the reassessment for want of jurisdiction.

---