TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1962 (12) TMI 55
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orce on March 30, 1948, the eight years' provided period therein could not be invoked. The High Court upheld this contention and said : "In our opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee is well founded, that the new rule of limitation of eight years prescribed by the amended section 34 would not apply to the case of the assessee before us., whose was an instance of a failure to submit a return, when the period of four years had ran out long before 30th March 1948 when the amended section 34 came into force as part of the Income-tax Act with effect from that date, 30th March 1948. The learned counsel for the Department next referred to section 31 of Act XXV of 1953 in support of his contention, that 'the notice issued on 25th July 1949 was valid. The learned counsel himself had to realise that section 31 of Act XXV of 1953 did not enlarge the scope of the amended section 34; nor did it purport to amend it. The validity of the notice, dated 25th July 1949 will still have to be decided with reference to the provisions of the amended section 34. Section 31 of Act XXV of 1953 does not therefore affect the question at issue, whether the extended period of limitati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Income-tax has come in appeal to this Court. This case is governed by the decision in C. A. No. 705 /57 (S. C. Prashar, Income-tax Officer v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas) [1963] 49 I. T. R. (S. C.) 1 (1) the judgment in which has been delivered today. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs. The appellant was granted the certificate by the High Court expressly on the condition that he would pay the costs of this appeal in any event to which he had agreed. SARKAR, J.-The respondent in this appeal is the assessee. She is the wife of one Sheikh-Abdul Khader who lived in Siam. In the year 1941-42, she received from her husband from Siam a sum of Rs. 9,180/-. It is not disputed that this amount constituted "'income" in her hands within s. 4 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. She did not however submit any return in respect of it. On July 25, 1949, a notice under s. 34 of the Act was issued to her asking her to file a return. Thereafter she was assessed on the aforesaid income on October 24, 1949. She appealed from that order but was unsuccessful in having the assessment set aside. At her request, the Appellate Tribunal submitted the following question to the High Court at Madras for it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the contrary and regret my inability to comprehend the reasons on which that view is based. That section also amended sub-s. (3) of s. 34 so as to include in it provisions regarding the time of the issue of the notice but we will not be concerned with this amendment in this appeal. Now, s. 31 is in these terms : "Section 31. "For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 34 of the principal Act shall apply and shall be deemed always to have applied to any assessment or re-assessment for any year ending before the 1st day of April, 1948, in any case where proceedings in respect of such assessment or re-assessment were commenced under the said sub-sections after the 8th day of September, 1948, and any notice issued in accordance with sub-section (1) or any assessment completed in pursuance of such notice within the time specified in sub section(3),whether before or after the commencement of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1953, shall, notwithstanding any judgment or order of any Court, Appellate Tribunal or Income tax authority to the contrary, be deemed to have been validly issued or completed, as the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not so applying would have arisen. I thus arrive at the conclusion that under s. 31 of the 1953 Act, the provisions of sub-ss. (1) and (3) I leave sub-s. (2) out as irrelevant-of s. 34 of the principal Act as amended in 1948 are to be applied and deemed always to have applied to assessment proceedings in respect of a year ended before April 1, 1948 where the proceedings were commenced after September 8, 1948, A notice issued and an order of assessment made in such proceedings are to be held valid if the notice is issued ",in accordance with sub-section (1)" of s. 34 as it stood after the 1948 amendment and the assessment is ',completed in pursuance of such notice within the time specified in sub-section (3)" of the same s. 34. Now the notice and assessment in tie present case satisfy all these conditions. To them, therefore, s. 34 as amended in 1948 applies. Judged by that section, admittedly the notice and assessment order are unexceptionable. It is true that in the present case when the notice was issued and the assessment made, the time to do either under the law as it stood before the 1948 amendment had expired. It may be that law would have applied to it if the 1953 Act had ....