Jurisdictional defects and wrong statutory references did not invalidate income-tax assessment, legal representative notice, or reassessment.

A writ challenge to income-tax assessment and reassessment proceedings was maintained because the attack went to jurisdiction, so the existence of an appellate remedy did not bar writ review. The court also held that wrong statutory references did not invalidate proceedings where the authority otherwise had lawful power under the applicable Act, and a rectification order could correct the citation without changing substance. Service of the required notice on the legal representative before assessment after the assessee's death was found sufficient, so there was no breach of the notice procedure or natural justice. Reassessment notice under section 148 was upheld because the officer had information forming reason to believe income had escaped assessment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was barred because an alternative remedy by way of appeal was available. (ii) Whether the assessment and rectification orders were invalid because the assessment year 1961-62 was dealt with under the new Act, and whether the wrong statutory references vitiated the proceedings. (iii) Whether the assessment on the legal representative was bad for non-compliance with the notice requirements applicable after the assessee's death. (iv) Whether the notice issued for reassessment under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was barred because an alternative remedy by way of appeal was available.

Analysis: The objection based on alternative remedy did not prevail because the challenge went to the very jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to make the impugned orders. A jurisdictional challenge could be examined in writ proceedings notwithstanding the existence of an appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection was rejected and the writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment and rectification orders were invalid because the assessment year 1961-62 was dealt with under the new Act, and whether the wrong statutory references vitiated the proceedings.

Analysis: The assessment year in question was governed by the old Act, but the proceedings and notices had mistakenly referred to provisions of the new Act. The Court held that the power exercised was referable to a jurisdiction that validly existed under the old Act, and a wrong description of the source of power did not nullify an act that was otherwise authorised by law. The rectification order merely corrected the statutory references and did not alter the substance of the assessment.

Conclusion: The assessment and rectification orders were not invalid on account of the wrong statutory references.

Issue (iii): Whether the assessment on the legal representative was bad for non-compliance with the notice requirements applicable after the assessee's death.

Analysis: On the facts, notice had been served on the legal representative under the relevant provisions requiring notice before assessment after the assessee's death. The Court held that, after service of the requisite notice, the officer could proceed to best judgment assessment if there was no co-operation. The procedural requirement preceding assessment had been satisfied.

Conclusion: There was no breach of the mandatory notice procedure and no violation of natural justice.

Issue (iv): Whether the notice issued for reassessment under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The reassessment notice was founded on information received by the Income-tax Officer leading to a belief that income had escaped assessment. The Court accepted that the officer had material before him to invoke the reopening provisions, and the jurisdiction to issue notice did not fail merely because one sentence in the record referred to a return that had not in fact been filed.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice was within jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: All jurisdictional and procedural challenges failed, and the impugned assessment and reopening proceedings were upheld, leaving the assessee without relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A proceeding is not invalid merely because it cites the wrong statutory provision if the authority otherwise had lawful jurisdiction, and reassessment jurisdiction arises where the officer has information giving reason to believe that income has escaped assessment.

---