9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (4) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s being challenged. The notice is in respect of escaped income of ₹ 47,595 for the assessment year 1944-45 and it is not disputed that the case falls under section 34(1)(a). The contention of the petitioner is that this notice is bad because it has not complied with the two conditions laid down in the proviso to section 34(1). In order to understand this contention we must take a historical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch, 1941; the second safeguard was that if eight years had elapsed then the notice should not be issued for an escaped income which aggregated to less than one lakh of rupees and the third safeguard was that the Central Board of Revenue had to be satisfied on reasons to be recorded that this was a fit case for the issue of a notice, which was for a period beyond eight years. Now, admittedly, this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, urged is that the case falls under the second proviso to section 34(3) and inasmuch as the Income-tax Officer is giving effect to a direction contained in an order of the Tribunal the notice can be issued at any time and the proviso to section 34(1) has no application. Now, when there was a limitation of eight years under section 34(1)(a) the second proviso to section 34(3) had to be resorted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee; and in other respects it has been made more lenient. Before the amendment a notice could be issued after eight years in respect of any escaped income, whatever the amount, provided the notice was issued to give effect to a direction contained in an order of an income-tax authority. Now a direction is not necessary for the issue of a notice. But as against that an assessee whose escaped incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
