Valid reopening notice under section 34 is essential jurisdiction; a misstated assessment year makes reassessment void.

A valid notice under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment, so the Income-tax Officer acquires jurisdiction only on proper service of a notice that correctly identifies the relevant assessment year. Where the notice misstated the year sought to be reopened, the defect was not a mere irregularity but a jurisdictional failure. An invalid notice could not sustain the reassessment proceedings, which were therefore void and without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether a notice issued for reopening an assessment under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was valid so as to confer jurisdiction, and whether an invalid notice vitiated the reassessment proceedings.

Analysis: The jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to reopen an assessment depended upon the issuance of a valid notice under section 34. Where the notice misstated the relevant assessment year and did not properly correspond to the year actually reopened, the defect was not a mere irregularity. A notice that is invalid in law cannot sustain reassessment proceedings, because the statutory foundation for jurisdiction itself is absent.

Conclusion: The notice under section 34 was invalid and the reassessment for the concerned year was without jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The substantive challenge to the reopening succeeded, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A valid notice under section 34 is a condition precedent to the Income-tax Officer's jurisdiction to reopen an assessment, and an invalid notice renders the reassessment proceedings void.

---