Invalid reassessment notice served to a firm could not sustain assessment against the same assessee as a Hindu undivided family.

A notice issued for reassessment under section 34(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was held ineffective where it was addressed to the assessee as a firm, but the reassessment was made in the status of a Hindu undivided family. The decisive defect was the mismatch in legal status: service on one taxable entity could not support reassessment against another. Accordingly, the reassessment in the status of the Hindu undivided family could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice issued under section 34(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was validly served when it was addressed to the assessee as a firm but the reassessment was made in the status of a Hindu undivided family.

Analysis: The reference concerned escaped-income reassessment for assessment year 1946-47. The notice relied upon for reopening was in the name of Madhav Motor Stores, and the Tribunal had treated it as the same form of notice that had been considered in an earlier reference involving the same assessee for prior years. The decisive question was not whether a notice existed, but whether the notice served on the assessee in the status of a firm could support reassessment in the status of a Hindu undivided family. Since the notice identified one legal status while the reassessment proceeded on a different status, the service was not valid for the purpose of assessing the Hindu undivided family.

Conclusion: The notice was not validly issued or served on the assessee in the status of a Hindu undivided family, and the reassessment in that status could not be sustained.

---