Reassessment notice validity: failure to give the statutory minimum period of thirty days rendered the proceedings void.

A reassessment notice under section 34 had to comply with the statutory minimum period of thirty days under section 22(2), and failure to do so was a jurisdictional defect that made the reassessment void. The validity of the notice went to the root of the Income-tax Officer's power to reopen completed assessments, so the assessee could raise the objection at the appellate stage even if it had not been taken earlier. Because the notices required returns within less than thirty days, the reassessment proceedings were unsustainable and the challenge was accepted in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was competent to entertain the assessee's objection regarding the invalidity of the notices under section 34; (ii) Whether the reassessments under section 34 were bad in law for want of a valid notice granting the statutory minimum period of thirty days.

Issue (i): Whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was competent to entertain the assessee's objection regarding the invalidity of the notices under section 34.

Analysis: The validity of the notice under section 34 went to the root of the Income-tax Officer's jurisdiction to reopen completed assessments. A pure question of law affecting jurisdiction could be raised at the appellate stage, and an earlier failure to urge the objection did not bar its consideration. An appellate direction could not confer jurisdiction where the original initiation itself was without lawful authority.

Conclusion: The objection was competent and could be entertained; the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessments under section 34 were bad in law for want of a valid notice granting the statutory minimum period of thirty days.

Analysis: Under section 34 read with section 22(2), the assessee had to be served with a notice requiring a return within not less than thirty days from service. The notices served on 1 April 1954, requiring returns by 15 April 1954, did not satisfy the statutory minimum period. Non-compliance with this requirement deprived the Income-tax Officer of jurisdiction and rendered the reassessment proceedings void.

Conclusion: The reassessments were bad in law and void; the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The notice defect was jurisdictional, and the reassessment proceedings could not be sustained; the references were answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment notice under section 34 must comply with the statutory minimum period under section 22(2), and failure to do so is a jurisdictional defect that renders the reassessment void; such a defect may be raised at any appellate stage.

---