Reassessment notice must identify the correct assessment year; jurisdictional defect cannot be waived by the assessee.

A reassessment notice under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 must specify the relevant assessment year with clear particularity; if it states the wrong year, the defect goes to jurisdiction and is not a mere procedural irregularity. Compliance with the statutory conditions for reopening assessment is a condition precedent to valid assumption of jurisdiction, so the assessee's filing of a return under protest cannot cure the defect or amount to waiver. The incorrect assessment year therefore invalidated the notice and vitiated the reassessment proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether a notice issued under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, containing an incorrect assessment year was a valid notice, and whether the defect could be waived by the assessee so as to sustain the reassessment proceedings.

Analysis: A notice under section 34 must clearly and with particularity specify the assessment year for which reassessment is sought. Where the notice itself states a wrong year, the defect goes to the assumption of jurisdiction and is not a mere procedural irregularity. The Court followed the view that compliance with the statutory conditions for reopening assessment is a condition precedent to jurisdiction, and therefore the assessee's conduct in filing a return under protest could not cure the defect or amount to waiver. The incorrect assessment year in the notice rendered the reassessment proceedings invalid.

Conclusion: The notice under section 34 was invalid, the defect was not capable of waiver, and the reassessment proceedings were vitiated. The answer to the referred question was in the affirmative in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment notice must itself satisfy the statutory conditions for reopening and clearly identify the relevant assessment year; a defect going to the root of jurisdiction cannot be waived by the assessee.

---