A vague notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be cured by subsequent clarification.

H.N. Seth, J.

1. Controversy in this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, concerns the assessment of Lala Madan Lal Agarwal (Hindu undivided family) for the assessment year 1946-47.

2. After obtaining approval of the Board for initiating proceedings to assess the escaped income of the assessee for the year 1946-47, the ITO, Aligarh, issued the following notice which was dated 29th September, 1962, to Sri Madan Lal Agarwal :

"Whereas I have reason to believe that your income......chargeable to tax for the assessment year in respect of which you are assessable in 1946-47, has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ;

1. therefore, propose to assess/reassess the income.....depreciation allowance for the said assessment year and I hereby require you to deliver to me within 30 days from the date of service of this notice, a return in the prescribed form of your income......in respect of which you are assessable for the said assessment year.

2. This notice is being issued after obtaining the necessary satisfaction of the Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., Lucknow/the Central Board of Revenue.

(Sd.) J. S. Agarwal, andnbsp; andnbsp;

Income-tax Officer, B-Ward,

Aligarh."andnbsp; andnbsp; andnbsp; andnbsp; andnbsp;

On receipt of the notice, Sri Madan Lal Agarwal, on November 12, 1962, filed a return of his individual income pertaining to the assessment year 1946-47, under protest. The ITO thereupon informed Sri Madan Lal Agarwal that the notice dated 29th September, 1962, related to his HUF and that he should, instead of the return of his individual income, file the return of the income of his HUF. At a later stage the proceedings were, under the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax, transferred to ITO, Special Survey Circle, Agra, who on 30th March, 1967, framed an assessment order determining the taxable income of the HUF for the assessment year 1946-47 as Rs. 3,87,763. However, as, before framing the assessment, the ITO, Special Survey Circle, Agra, did not give any notice or fresh opportunity to the assessee, the AAC, by his order dated 30th July, 1974, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, set aside the assessment made by the ITO and remanded the case to him for making a fresh assessment in accordance with law.

3. As, before the AAC, the assessee had also questioned the validity of the proceedings initiated tinder Section 147/148 of the I.T. Act and had claimed that those proceedings deserved to be quashed, and its plea in that regard had not been accepted, the assessee took the matter up in appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, and raised the following five issues before it.

1. That the proceedings initiated against the assessee stood vitiated as no notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was ever served upon it.

2. That there was no Hindu undivided family styled as Lala Madan Lal Agarwal in existence in the relevant assessment year.

3. That the Revenue having earlier proceeded to assess Sri Madan Lal Agarwal as an individual was precluded from assessing him in the status of a Hindu undivided family.

4. That the requisite belief of the Income-tax Officer enabling him to initiate proceedings under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act was no belief in law, and

4. That the Income-tax Officers at Aligarh and Agra had no jurisdiction in the matter.

5. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal repelled all the pleas raised on behalf of the assessee and upheld the order of the AAC remanding the case to the ITO for framing fresh assessment in accordance with law.

The assessee then moved the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the IT, Act, and requested it to state the case and refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this court:

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment and the proceedings purporting to be under Section 147(a) are legally valid and maintainable ?

2. Whether the Tribunal was