Strict notice and escaped-assessment requirements govern reassessment; a mere change of opinion cannot reopen assessment.

Reassessment under section 35 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 is confined to escaped assessment or assessment at too low a rate, and it requires strict compliance with the statutory notice procedure, including recording reasons and giving the prescribed time to respond. A notice founded only on a changed method of computation or a different view of the same materials does not satisfy the jurisdictional preconditions for reopening. The notice requirement is mandatory and cannot be waived by omission to object before the assessing authority. Delay in invoking writ jurisdiction does not defeat relief where the reassessment is without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment notice issued under section 35 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 satisfied the statutory requirements and conferred jurisdiction to reopen the assessment; (ii) whether the requirement of a valid notice under section 35 could be waived; (iii) whether the writ petition could be refused on the ground of delay; and (iv) whether the reassessment was sustainable in law and on facts.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment notice issued under section 35 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 satisfied the statutory requirements and conferred jurisdiction to reopen the assessment.

Analysis: Section 35 authorises reassessment only where income has escaped assessment or been assessed at too low a rate, and only after the officer records reasons and serves a notice containing the requirements of section 17(2). The notice must give at least thirty days for filing the return. The notice in question did not comply with these requirements and was founded on a mere change in the method of computation, which did not amount to escaped assessment within the meaning of section 35.

Conclusion: The notice was invalid and did not confer jurisdiction to reassess; the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the requirement of a valid notice under section 35 could be waived.

Analysis: A notice prescribed as a condition precedent to reassessment goes to the root of jurisdiction. An invalid or absent notice cannot be cured by omission to object before the assessing authority, because jurisdiction cannot be conferred by waiver where the statute makes notice mandatory.

Conclusion: There could be no waiver of the statutory notice requirement; the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the writ petition could be refused on the ground of delay.

Analysis: Delay is a relevant discretionary factor in writ jurisdiction, but it is not decisive where the impugned action is without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction. Since the reassessment was held to suffer from a jurisdictional defect, the lapse of time did not justify refusal of relief.

Conclusion: Relief was not barred by delay; the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the reassessment was sustainable in law and on facts.

Analysis: The reopening rested on the successor officer's different view about the proper method of assessment, not on any omission of income or other valid ground of escaped assessment. A reassessment mechanism cannot be used to substitute a new opinion for a prior lawful assessment made on the same materials.

Conclusion: The reassessment was unsustainable in law and on facts; the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reopening and consequential reassessment proceedings were quashed because the statutory preconditions for reassessment were not met and the action lacked jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment provision can be invoked only on the statutory grounds expressly specified and after strict compliance with the prescribed notice requirements; a mere change of opinion or alternative method of computation does not amount to escaped assessment, and a jurisdictional defect in notice cannot be waived.

---