https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174669 A notice under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was treated as a condition precedent to reassessment jurisdiction, so it had to satisfy the statute's mandatory requirements. The Income-tax Officer's signature was held to be an integral part of the notice under the statutory scheme and procedural analogy relied on, and an unsigned notice was invalid, equivalent to no notice at all. Because the requirement operated in the public interest, the defect could not be waived by the assessee, and later participation in the proceedings did not cure the jurisdictional defect. en-us Fri, 05 Feb 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Oct 2015 12:52:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174669 A notice under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was treated as a condition precedent to reassessment jurisdiction, so it had to satisfy the statute's mandatory requirements. The Income-tax Officer's signature was held to be an integral part of the notice under the statutory scheme and procedural analogy relied on, and an unsigned notice was invalid, equivalent to no notice at all. Because the requirement operated in the public interest, the defect could not be waived by the assessee, and later participation in the proceedings did not cure the jurisdictional defect. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 05 Feb 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174669