Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Governor-General's Ordinance No. IX of 1939 validated the reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 1937-38 notwithstanding the objection that they were initiated by an Income-tax Officer lacking jurisdiction under section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
Analysis: The reassessment had been commenced and continued pursuant to orders made by the income-tax authorities, and the only infirmity found in the proceedings was the objection arising under section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Ordinance was retrospective and expressly provided that sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 64 should be deemed never to have applied in the relevant class of cases. It further declared that assessments made in accordance with section 2, and proceedings taken for that purpose before the commencement of the Ordinance, should not be invalid by reason of section 64. The appointment of the Special Provincial Circle officer was not held to be invalid under section 5(4), and the earlier jurisdictional objection was removed by the validating ordinance.
Conclusion: The Ordinance validated the reassessment proceedings, and the objection that the proceedings were vitiated for want of jurisdiction under section 64 failed.