https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173752 Reassessment under section 34 could proceed against a separate taxable entity even though the same escaped income had already been assessed in another person's hands, because that earlier assessment did not extinguish jurisdiction where the materials supported belief of escapement. A clerical mistake in the section 34 notices, including the year description, did not invalidate the proceedings absent shown prejudice or material misdirection. A writ under article 226 was held premature while the reassessment enquiry remained unfinished, since the assessee should ordinarily pursue statutory remedies under the Income-tax Act rather than short-circuit the assessment process. en-us Wed, 15 Nov 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:16:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173752 Reassessment under section 34 could proceed against a separate taxable entity even though the same escaped income had already been assessed in another person's hands, because that earlier assessment did not extinguish jurisdiction where the materials supported belief of escapement. A clerical mistake in the section 34 notices, including the year description, did not invalidate the proceedings absent shown prejudice or material misdirection. A writ under article 226 was held premature while the reassessment enquiry remained unfinished, since the assessee should ordinarily pursue statutory remedies under the Income-tax Act rather than short-circuit the assessment process. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 15 Nov 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173752