Limitation for reassessment cannot revive a barred remedy; remittance through an intermediary was still assessable as income.

An amendment enlarging a limitation period for reassessment does not revive proceedings that had already become time-barred under the earlier law, so reassessment initiated after expiry of the unamended four-year period was invalid. The Court also treated money received by the assessee from her husband through an intermediary as remittance income within the statutory deeming provision, because the mode of transfer through an agent did not alter the character of the receipt. Relief ultimately followed on the limitation issue, and the remittance characterisation did not affect the final result.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether proceedings initiated under the amended limitation provision for reassessment were valid when the period of limitation under the unamended provision had already expired before the amendment came into force; (ii) whether the amount received by the assessee from her husband through an intermediary was assessable as income by way of remittance under the statutory deeming provision.

Issue (i): Whether proceedings initiated under the amended limitation provision for reassessment were valid when the period of limitation under the unamended provision had already expired before the amendment came into force.

Analysis: The limitation provision under the unamended law gave only four years in a case of failure to file a return, and that period had expired before the amended provision became operative. The amendment enlarged the period of limitation, but an enactment enlarging time does not revive a right to proceed which had already become barred under the prior law. The reasoning drawn from authority on statutory limitation was that procedural changes may operate retrospectively, but not so as to revive a dead remedy or confer jurisdiction where the power to act had already lapsed.

Conclusion: The proceedings were invalid and the answer was in the negative, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount received by the assessee from her husband through an intermediary was assessable as income by way of remittance under the statutory deeming provision.

Analysis: The money was transmitted by the non-resident husband through bank drafts obtained in the name of an agent and paid to the assessee through that agent. On those facts, the receipt was treated as a remittance from the husband within the meaning of the deeming provision, notwithstanding the intermediary mode of transmission.

Conclusion: The amount was assessable as remittance income under the deeming provision, though this answer did not affect the ultimate result because the first issue succeeded in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment notice failed because the amended limitation provision could not revive a remedy already barred under the earlier law, and the assessee obtained relief on that ground.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment enlarging a period of limitation does not revive reassessment proceedings that had already become time-barred before the amendment came into force.

---