9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (1) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... After the original assessment for the year 1953-54 was completed, it was reopened under section 34(1) of the Act, after obtaining prior approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax Patna, to assess Rs. 20,146, which as treated as a deemed dividend under section 23A(1) of the Income-tax Act. In the case of Messrs. Indian Mica Supply Co. (P.) Ltd., the dividend of the company was deemed to have been d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the assessee was included in her total income in the assessment. Against this, again, the assessee went in appeal, contending that the proceeding under section 34(1) in relation to the assessment year 1952-53 was barred by limitation as provided under sub-section (3) of section 34, since a period of four years had elapsed from the last date of the assessment year of 1952-53. That contention wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent year 1952-53 was clearly barred by time, unless the second proviso to sub-section (3) of section 34 came to the aid of the department. We have disposed of another case, M.J.C. No. 413 of 1963 (Ram Gopal Rajgarhia v. Commissioner of Income-tax) today, the 13th January, 1966, involving the very same question in regard to the deemed dividend from the same company in the case of another shareholde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment year 1952-53, and his direction to the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessment under section 34 for that purpose were not within his jurisdiction for purposes of lifting the ban of limitation as mentioned in the second proviso to sub-section (3). In that view, the assessment made after serving a notice under section 34(1) of the Act long after the expiry of four years from the end of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
