Limitation bars reassessment where amended proviso cannot revive an already time-barred income-tax remedy.

Reassessment under section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was held time-barred where the four-year period had expired before the amendment took effect. The amended second proviso did not revive a remedy already barred by limitation, and section 31 of the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1953 could not be relied on because the matter was not within the referred question and the necessary factual foundation was absent. The reassessment orders could not be sustained, and the appeals failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment orders made on 27 November 1953 were barred by limitation under section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and whether the amended proviso or section 31 of the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1953 saved the assessments.

Analysis: The assessments related to the years 1946-47 and 1947-48, and the statutory period of four years had expired before 1 April 1952. The amended second proviso to section 34(3) was held not to revive a remedy that had already become barred before the amendment came into force. The attempt to rely on section 31 of the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1953 also failed, because that point was not within the question referred to the High Court and no proper material or finding brought the case within that provision.

Conclusion: The reassessment orders were time-barred and were not validated by the amended proviso or by section 31.

Final Conclusion: The assessments could not be sustained and the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment enlarging the reassessment power does not revive a remedy already barred by limitation, and a validating provision cannot be relied upon unless the case falls within the precise question referred and the necessary factual foundation is present.

---