Mr. Gokal Chand Mital, C. J. ( 1 ) IN April, 1963, concerned Income-taxofficer issued notice to Mr. Bashesharnath. , assessee, undersection 139 (2)of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the assessment year 1963-64. On 20/10/1963 Basheshar Nath submitted his return of income inresponse to the said notice. While the proceedings were still pending, indecember 1965 Basheshar Nath died leaving behind his widow and threesons. The matter was being conducted by M/s. A. S. Bhatia and Co. , thechartered Accountants concerned. The Income-tax Officer gave anintimation to him about Basheshar Naths s case, in reply to which theincome-tax Officer was informed that the assessee had died/on 10thdecember, 1965 and the/family was in the mourning and some time should begranted. Despite information, the Income-tax Officercontinued the proceedings and issued notice under Section 143 (2) in the name of Basheshar Nath,which was served on Mr. Shinghari, Advocate. The assessment was completed on 22/03/1968 determining the total income at Rs. 3,99,8191 -. ( 2 ) SOME of the legal representatives of Basheshar Nath filed anappeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and challenged theassessment as being null and void, being against a dead man. The Appellateassistant Commissioner came to the conclusion that in spite of the death ofthe assessee, the proceedings could be continued against the legal representativesand, therefore, were not invalid or nullity but held that it was necessaryto issue notice to the legal representatives and accordingly, vide order dated 31/01/1970 set aside the assessment and directed the Income-taxofficer to make fresh assessment in accordance with law, after making thelegal representatives party to the proceedings from the stage they were whenbasheshar Nath, died. ( 3 ) THE legal representatives who had gone up in appeal before theappellate Assistant Commissioner filed further appeal before the Income. taxappellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench A and the appeal was dismissed on 2 9/03/1972 upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. ( 4 ) THE legal representatives sought reference of the law pointinvolved in this case for opinion of this Court and the matter was referred tothis Court and was registered as Income-tax Reference No. 15 of 1974. Itappears that those legal representatives, who sought reference, did not pursuethe reference and ultimately by order dated. 5/02/1981. thereference was returned unanswered. ( 5 ) WHILE reference was being sought, one of the four legal representatives, namely. Itappears that those legal representatives, who sought reference, did not pursuethe reference and ultimately by order dated. 5/02/1981. thereference was returned unanswered. ( 5 ) WHILE reference was being sought, one of the four legal representatives, namely. Vijay Sarin, filed this writ petition to challenge the orderof assessment and the orders passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal on identical grounds, namely, that the order of theincome-tax Officer was nullity and the proceedings could not be continuedagainst the legal representatives of Basheshar Nath from the stage theywere when he died. The writ petition is opposed by the Income-taxdepartment. ( 6 ) ON a consideration of the matter, we are of the view that in viewof the provisions of Section 159 (2), relating to liabilities in such cases of thelegal representatives. Section 251. relating to the powers of the Appellateassistant Commissioner, including the power to refer back to the assessingauthority for making a fresh assessment in accordance with law and thedecision of the Supreme Court in Estate of Late Rangalal Jajodia v. Commissioner of income-tax, Madras, 79 ITR 505, there is no scope forinterference in the exercise of the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of thiscourt. ( 7 ) APART from the fact that some other legal representatives failed inscuttling the proceedings by issuing fresh notice to the legal representativesfrom the stage when Basheshar Nath, asscssee, died, upto the Tribunal andthen in not pursuing the reference made to this Court in view of Section159 (2) of the Act. the Income-tax Officer was justified in continuing theproceedings against the legal representatives of the deceased. Section 159 (2) (a) clearly provides that any proceeding taken against the deceased before hisdeath shall be deemed to have been taken against the legal representativeand may be continued against the legal representative from the stage atwhich it stood on the date of death of the deceased The Income-taxofficer committed an error of procedure in not issuing notice to the legalrepresentatives regarding further proceedings to be continued and. therefore,the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal were right in comingto the conclusion that there is a procedural defect and not absence ofjurisdiction and were right in remanding the matter to the Income-taxofficer for proceeding afresh from the stage at which it stood on the date ofdeath of the decased by issuing notice to the legal representatives. therefore,the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal were right in comingto the conclusion that there is a procedural defect and not absence ofjurisdiction and were right in remanding the matter to the Income-taxofficer for proceeding afresh from the stage at which it stood on the date ofdeath of the decased by issuing notice to the legal representatives. ( 8 ) IT was also urged before us that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner after setting aside the order of the Income-tax Officer had no power toremand the matter to him for continuing the proceedings from the date ofdeath of the asscssee and in making a fresh order. This argument is alsoagainst the wording of Section 251 of the Act. Section 251 (1 ) (a) clearlyprovides that the Commissioner (Appeal) shall have the power to set asidean assessment and refer the case hack to the assessing officer for making afresh assessment in accordance with the directions given by him. Accordingly this contention is also repelled. ( 9 ) THE following observations, made in Rangalal Jajodia s case (supra) are of great help for deciding this case : WHAT happened in the present assessment proceedings was thatthe proceedings were commenced during the lifetime of Rangalaljajodia by reason of the returns being filed by and notices undersecs. 22 (3), 23 (2) of the Act having been served on Rangalal Jajodiaduring his lifetime. The assesment order contains intrinsic evidence to that effect as also of repeated intimation having been givento Shankarlal Jajodia after the death of Rangalal Jajodia. No replyhaving been received from Shankarlal Jajodia, the assessment wascompleted under Section 24-B of the Act through the legal heirsand representatives including Aruna Devi. The Appellant Assistantcommissioner on an appeal preferred by Shankarlal Jajodia setaside the assessment because no notice was given to Aruna Devithough the assessment proceeding was against her as a legalrepresentative. The lack of a notice does not amount to therevenue authority having had no jurisdiction to assess, but that theassessment was defective by reason of notice not having been givento her. An assessment proceeding does not cease to be a proceeding under the Act merely by reason of want of notice. It will bea proceeding liable to be challenged and corrected. An assessment proceeding does not cease to be a proceeding under the Act merely by reason of want of notice. It will bea proceeding liable to be challenged and corrected. Similarly, ifthere is a mistake as to name or there is a misdescription of thename, the proceedings will be liable to be challenged and correctedby giving notice to the assessee subject to such just exceptions as anassessee can take under law. The direction given by the Appellateassistant Commissioner was to make fresh assessment on Arunadevi in accordance with the provisions of the Act. " ( 10 ) A reading of the aforesaid quotation clearly shows that/lack ofnotice to the legal representatives does not amount to revenue authorityhaving no jurisdiction but the assessment was defective by reason of want ofnotice. It was also observed that an assessment proceeding does not ceaseto be a proceeding under the Act merely by rerson of want of notice. Accordingly, we find not the least ground to interfere in the writ jurisdictionand the writ petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 5,000. 00.