Prior notice is mandatory for reassessment of escaped income; revised composition orders failed where notice was absent.

Revised composition orders were treated as reassessments for escaped agricultural income under section 35, so prior notice with the particulars required by section 16(2) had to be strictly served before reassessment. The reassessment was upheld for the years for which a combined notice was shown, but quashed for the years where no notice had been served. The challenge to the extent of land included in the holding also failed for the valid reassessment years because the assessee produced no concrete material to displace the assessed extent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether revised composition orders made after settlement proceedings were in substance reassessments for escaped income under section 35 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, and whether absence of notice vitiated the reassessment for the relevant years; (ii) Whether the extent of lands included in the assessee's holding in Mukundarayapuram village was correctly fixed.

Issue (i): Whether revised composition orders made after settlement proceedings were in substance reassessments for escaped income under section 35 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, and whether absence of notice vitiated the reassessment for the relevant years.

Analysis: An original composition order under section 65 did not oust the assessing authority's power to proceed under section 35 if income had escaped assessment because some lands were omitted from the holding. The revised composition orders were therefore treated as orders under section 35, and the procedure under that provision had to be strictly followed. The record showed service of a combined notice for assessment years 1966-67 to 1970-71, but no notice for assessment years 1963-64 to 1965-66 and 1971-72. Section 35 required prior notice containing the particulars contemplated by section 16(2) before reassessment.

Conclusion: The reassessment was valid for assessment years 1966-67 to 1970-71, and invalid for assessment years 1963-64 to 1965-66 and 1971-72 for want of notice.

Issue (ii): Whether the extent of lands included in the assessee's holding in Mukundarayapuram village was correctly fixed.

Analysis: For assessment years where notice had been served, the assessee did not file objections before the assessing authority and also failed to produce concrete material before the revisional authority or the Court to establish the correct extent of land. The challenge to the quantified extent therefore lacked evidentiary support.

Conclusion: The challenge to the inclusion and extent of land failed for the years where reassessment was otherwise valid.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were allowed only to the extent that reassessment orders for assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1971-72 were quashed, while the revised orders for assessment years 1966-67 to 1970-71 were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a revised assessment is in substance a reassessment for escaped income, the statutory precondition of prior notice must be strictly complied with, and reassessment without such notice is invalid.

---