Fresh notice required when a succeeding officer continues penalty proceedings, preserving the assessee's right of hearing.

Where penalty proceedings are continued by a succeeding officer after a change in the assessing officer, a fresh notice is required to secure the assessee's statutory right of hearing. The Court applied the earlier binding construction of the corresponding predecessor provision and held that, without fresh notice from the new officer, the assessee may not be aware of the change or of the opportunity to exercise that right. Penalty proceedings were therefore unsustainable, and the revenue's request for a reference failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether fresh notices affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard were necessary when penalty proceedings were completed by a succeeding officer after a change in the assessing officer.

Analysis: The requirement of a fresh notice was held to follow from the statutory right of the assessee to be heard when proceedings are taken up by a different officer. The Court applied the earlier binding construction of the corresponding predecessor provision and held that, without a fresh notice from the succeeding officer, the assessee may not know of the change in officer or of the occasion to exercise the right conferred by the proviso. The matter was treated as covered by binding precedent.

Conclusion: Fresh notice was necessary, and the revenue's request for a reference failed.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirmed that penalty proceedings could not be sustained without a fresh notice after a change of officer, and the revenue's cases were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: When a succeeding officer takes over pending proceedings, a fresh notice is required so that the assessee gets an effective opportunity of being heard and can exercise the statutory right arising on the change of officer.

---