https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39741 A reassessment notice under section 34 had to comply with the statutory minimum period of thirty days under section 22(2), and failure to do so was a jurisdictional defect that made the reassessment void. The validity of the notice went to the root of the Income-tax Officer's power to reopen completed assessments, so the assessee could raise the objection at the appellate stage even if it had not been taken earlier. Because the notices required returns within less than thirty days, the reassessment proceedings were unsustainable and the challenge was accepted in favour of the assessee. en-us Wed, 12 Sep 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:34:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39741 A reassessment notice under section 34 had to comply with the statutory minimum period of thirty days under section 22(2), and failure to do so was a jurisdictional defect that made the reassessment void. The validity of the notice went to the root of the Income-tax Officer's power to reopen completed assessments, so the assessee could raise the objection at the appellate stage even if it had not been taken earlier. Because the notices required returns within less than thirty days, the reassessment proceedings were unsustainable and the challenge was accepted in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 12 Sep 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39741