identical grounds of appeal in these two Revenue appeals involving asst. yrs. 1970-71 and 1971-72 are reproduced below: " 1. (i) That ld. AAC has erred in law and on facts of case in annulling assessment made by WTO under s. 16(5) of WT Act, 1957. (ii) That order of ld. AAC is erroneous in law because as per provision to s. 42-C insert w.e.f. 1st Oct., 1975 proceedings are not invalid and ruling relied upon by ld. AAC relate to period prior to amendment. (iii) Without prejudice to earlier grounds, ld. AAC failed to appreciate that with chemical treatment it is possible to erase even ink and notice in WTO s file bear his initials." order contested is dt. 5th Jan., 1984 common for both years. assessments were framed on 18th March 1983. In original assessments framed under s. 16(3) of WT Act on 29th March, 1972, taxable wealth was computed at Rs. 5,22,281 and Rs. 5,40,476 respectively. Later assessment was revised under s. 35 of Act on 13th Aug., 1974 for asst. yr. 1970-71 and assessee s claim of exemption in respect of units of Unit Trust of India amounting to Rs. 25,000 was withdrawn. result was re-computation of wealth at Rs. 6,47,281. On 5th Aug., 1975 s. 3 5 provision was again invoked because value of ornaments amounting to Rs. 2 , 0 1 5 , which were disclosed by assessee, had not been added. Consequently, amount was added. result was that assessable wealth figure worked out to Rs. 6,49,296. In respect of asst. yr. 1971-72 also there were three orders passed under s . 35 of WT Act. In first two orders taxable wealth was enhanced, inasmuch as, vide order of 15th March, 1975 it was computed at Rs. 6,24,741 but by later order of 5th Aug., 1975 value of annuity and excess amount of National Savings Certificate were adjusted and wealth was re-computed at Rs. 6,17,281. On 23rd June, 1978 as per orders-sheet entry of WTO assessments were re-opened on ground that assessee had given untrue statement with regard to his share in certain immovable properties. assessments were originally made on basis that his share was 7/16, whereas according to information which come form assessee having had filed claim before Land Acquisition Officer, U.P. his share was 29/48. On this basis WTO came to conclusion that wealth to extent of Rs. 50,034 had escaped assessment for each of two years. Notices under s. 17 of WT Act were prepared on 23rd June, 1978 for both years, but these were served on respondent on 3rd Nov., 1978. As fact relies are dt. 23rd June, 1978/3rd Nov., 1978. respondent, however, did not file any return in compliance. notice under s. 16 (4) of Act was issued on 3rd Nov., 1982 and served on next day, i.e. 4th Nov., 1982, but assessee instead of filing return objected to re-assessments proceedings vide letter dt. 15th Dec., 1982 on ground that assessee had received unsigned notice, which was illegal and proceedings, therefore, void-ab initio. copy of assessee s letter is on Revenue record. WTO apparently placing reliance on copy of notice under s. 17 which was on record and on which assessee had signed, completed best judgment assessment under s. 16 (5) of Act on 18th March, 1983, in which assessable wealth came to be computed at Rs. 11,10,800. assessee filed appeal before first appellate authority and challenged re-assessment proceedings as also enhancement of taxable wealth i.e., additions made were agitated as wrong and unjustified. Before AAC for assessee, photocopies of notice, which were given to assessee, were furnished and on basis of such notices it was argued that there being no signature of WTO, proceedings were bad. AAC further noticing that on 15th Dec., 1982 assessee had submitted his reply that no returns under s. 17 were filed since notice received did not bear signature, proceeded with case of assumption that assessee did not receive any valid notices for re-assessment proceedings. Before us also assessee s representative, Shri Saxena filed copies of notices, which were given to assessee and which certainly are without signature of WTO. case has, however, peculiar feature. It is not that notices were received by registered post but these were served on assessee person and therefore, what should have been seen was copies of notices on Revenue records and not notices in possession of assessee. Here, what was served was those notices which came to be placed on WTO s file and such notices being properly signed, there can be said to be no infirmity with regard to any service. One more factor, which we like to record, is that four notices and equal number of copies were prepared in respect of asst. y r s . 1970-71 to 1973-74. assessee s representative accepted what in respect of letter two years there was no infirmity at all inasmuch as assessee s copies also had signature of WTO. In present case all four year s notices signed by WTO were duly served on assessee and we have perused such notices ourselves. We fail to understand as to how re- assessment proceedings could be held to be invalid as done by ld. AAC on ground that notices in possession of assessee for two years did not have WTO s initials. Apparently, ld. AAC confused issue with regard to notices received and notices served. In this case, notices which were served mattered and not notices which could be copies of original in possession of assessee. We accordingly reverse AAC s order on narrow point that there was no service of valid notices for initiating re- assessment proceedings and, therefore, assessment proceedings were nullity and void ab initio . We are expressing no opinion on question of other aspects of initiation of re-assessment. For Revenue, Shri R. N. Bara kly relied on provisions of s. 42C of Act for his submission that even if there was any submission of particular notice not being signed, but when in substance and fact such notices were sought to be in conformity with or according to intent and purposes of Act, proceedings should not have been struck down on sole ground that notices with assessee were not bearing any signature. Though we are recording positive finding that notices served on assessee were valid because these were signed by WTO, but assessing such was not case even then there could be no infirmity in service of notices as such, in view of s. 42-C which is brought in close focus and for purpose reproduced below: "No return of wealth, assessment, notice summons or other proceedings furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of provisions of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such return of wealth, assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings, if such return of wealth, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to intent and purpose of this Act." As mentioned earlier, from perusal of grounds of appeal before AAC, w e find that re-assessments were challenged on merits also and enhancement agitated. This aspect has not been adjudicated by AAC. It is, therefore, considered necessary that appeals be restored to first appellate authority s file. Shri R. N. Bara in faience accepted that after perusing notices which were in assessee representative possession in Court, he did not propose to address any argument with regard to ground No. 1 (iii). said ground is accordingly dismissed as not prosecuted. Otherwise also we reject it, there being no basis for allegation contained therein. In result, for purpose of statistics Revenue appeals are partly allowed, matters being restored to AAC s file for adjudication on merits of case. No relief is sought in Cross Objections, which are filed only to support AAC s order. For purpose of statistics, these are also dismissed as infructuous. *** WEALTH-TAX OFFICER v. NADIR SHAH KHAN