Reassessment sanction was upheld where official records proved approval and the presumption of regularity defeated a belated challenge.

Statutory sanction for reopening under section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was treated as duly granted where the official record, including the assessing officer's proposal, the Commissioner's forwarding memo, the Board's telegram and the authenticated Form C endorsement, showed approval. Once that official act was established, the presumption of regularity under section 114 of the Evidence Act applied, and a vague or belated challenge without specific particulars did not dislodge it. The challenge was also undermined by the successor authority position and the absence of the necessary impleadment, so the plea of non-compliance with the sanction requirement was not made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sanction of the Central Board of Revenue for initiation of proceedings under section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was validly granted and proved.

Analysis: The challenge to reassessment turned on the existence and validity of the Board's approval. The records, including the assessing officer's proposal, the Commissioner's forwarding memo, the Board's telegram, and the authenticated Form C endorsement by the Secretary, showed that approval had in fact been accorded. Once the official act of granting approval was established, the presumption under section 114 of the Evidence Act applied that official acts were regularly performed. The petitioner had not specifically pleaded the alleged invalidity with particulars, had earlier allowed similar proceedings to be discharged without pursuing them, and had not impleaded the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which was the successor authority deemed to have made the approval under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963. The challenge was therefore treated as stale, belated, and lacking bona fides, and the plea of non-compliance with the sanction requirement was not made out.

Conclusion: The sanction under section 34(1)(a) was held to have been validly granted and proved, against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment notices were upheld and the writ petition failed on the only substantial issue that was argued.

Ratio Decidendi: When the official record shows that the statutory sanction for reopening has in fact been granted, the court may presume regular performance of official acts, and a vague or belated challenge to the manner of grant will not invalidate the proceedings.

---