Reassessment notice jurisdiction turns on the assessee's status; notices to the wrong taxable unit cannot sustain proceedings.

Delay and laches did not bar the writ because the challenge was brought at the earliest practical stage, the petitioner kept contesting jurisdiction, and no prejudice to the revenue was shown. Reassessment notices issued to the petitioner as legal representative of a deceased person could not support reassessment of the Hindu undivided family's income, because an individual and an HUF are distinct assessment units and a notice under section 34 is the jurisdictional foundation. Notices directed to the wrong assessee, and unsupported by matching sanction, were invalid and were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petition should be refused on the ground of delay and laches; (ii) Whether the reassessment notices issued to the petitioner as legal representative of the deceased could support reassessment of the Hindu undivided family's income.

Issue (i): Whether the petition should be refused on the ground of delay and laches.

Analysis: The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary, but delay is not by itself a bar in every case. The petitioner challenged the notices at the earliest practical stage, continued to contest jurisdiction, and waited after receiving indications that the department was not proceeding further. No prejudice to the revenue was shown, and the proceedings had not advanced beyond the notice stage when the petition was filed.

Conclusion: The objection of delay and laches was rejected in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment notices issued to the petitioner as legal representative of the deceased could support reassessment of the Hindu undivided family's income.

Analysis: Under the Income-tax Act, an individual and a Hindu undivided family are distinct units of assessment. The notices, read with the earlier show-cause communication, were addressed to the petitioner as legal heir or legal representative of the deceased and were framed for reassessment of the deceased's income as an individual. They were not notices to the Hindu undivided family, nor could the sanction obtained for proceedings against the Hindu undivided family be used to sustain notices directed against the deceased's individual assessment. A notice under section 34 is the foundation of jurisdiction, and proceedings taken under a notice issued to the wrong assessee are without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The notices were invalid for the purpose of reassessing the Hindu undivided family's income and were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, the impugned reassessment notices were set aside, and further reassessment proceedings pursuant to those notices were prohibited.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment notice must be construed according to the assessee and status expressly indicated in the notice, and proceedings cannot be sustained against a different taxable unit or status than the one for which the notice and sanction were issued.

---