Pending surtax proceedings cannot be reopened on a bare office note that does not show actual termination of the original proceedings.

A mere office note stating that proceedings had already been dropped, without any supporting order or record showing an actual conclusion, does not terminate the original surtax proceedings. On that construction, the proceedings remained pending and a reassessment notice could not validly be issued during that pendency. Because the jurisdictional point was resolved on the face of the note, the proposed reference was unnecessary and the merits questions were academic. The Tribunal was therefore justified in refusing to state the case, and the application for reference failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a mere office note stating that proceedings had already been dropped, without any supporting order on record, concluded the assessment proceedings so as to bar reopening under the surtax law, and whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to refer the proposed questions.

Analysis: The note relied upon by the Revenue did not itself drop or conclude the proceedings; it only referred to an earlier dropping of proceedings. No order or entry supporting that assertion was produced from the record. On that footing, the proceedings pursuant to the returns were treated as still pending and not finally concluded, so a notice for reassessment could not validly be issued during that pendency. Since the jurisdictional issue was answered on the plain construction of the note, the proposed reference was unnecessary. The remaining questions relating to the merits of the reassessment were treated as academic.

Conclusion: The note did not terminate the proceedings, the reassessment was not shown to be validly initiated during their pendency, and the Tribunal was right in declining to state the case.

Final Conclusion: The application for reference failed, and the rule was discharged with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere notation referring to proceedings as already dropped, without any order or record showing an actual conclusion of the original proceedings, does not terminate those proceedings and cannot justify reopening while they remain pending.

---