Limitation and reassessment powers: amended reopening proviso cannot revive a time-barred notice, and unequal treatment of strangers offends article 14.

An amended reopening proviso under the Income-tax Act was treated as unable to revive a reassessment remedy already barred by limitation, because the time limit formed part of the statutory competence to reopen an assessment and no clear intention to validate a time-barred notice was expressed. The notice issued after expiry of the original period was therefore incompetent and invalid. On constitutional challenge, the limitation exception was upheld for assessees who were parties to the specified appellate or revisional proceedings, but held discriminatory and unconstitutional insofar as it denied limitation protection to strangers to those proceedings under article 14.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the amended second proviso to section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act could revive a remedy already barred by limitation and sustain a reassessment notice issued after expiry of the original time-limit; (ii) whether the amended proviso, in so far as it excluded the protection of limitation for persons affected by findings or directions in specified appellate or revisional orders, violated article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): whether the amended second proviso to section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act could revive a remedy already barred by limitation and sustain a reassessment notice issued after expiry of the original time-limit.

Analysis: The time-limit for issuing a notice under section 34 is part of the statutory competence to reopen an assessment. Once the period prescribed by the unamended provision had expired, the right and remedy to proceed had become barred. The amendment, although deemed to operate from an earlier date, did not express any intention to revive proceedings already time-barred for an assessment year that had fallen outside the extended reach of the amended proviso. The notice issued after expiry of the original eight-year period could not derive validity from the amended provision.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice was incompetent and invalid, and the challenge to it succeeded.

Issue (ii): whether the amended proviso, in so far as it excluded the protection of limitation for persons affected by findings or directions in specified appellate or revisional orders, violated article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: A classification denying limitation protection to assessees who were parties to the specified proceedings was held to rest on a real and substantial distinction, because such persons were already within the appellate and revisional framework that could produce binding findings or directions. But the extension of the same rule to strangers to those proceedings lacked a rational basis, since a finding in proceedings inter partes ought not ordinarily to bind non-parties, and no sufficient justification existed for depriving such strangers of the benefit of limitation. That part of the proviso was therefore discriminatory.

Conclusion: The proviso was upheld as against assessees who were parties to the specified proceedings, but was unconstitutional insofar as it applied to strangers to those proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The impugned notice could not stand, and the assessee's petition succeeded on the ground of want of competence to reopen the assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: A provision extending reopening powers will not be construed to revive a remedy already barred unless such intention is clearly expressed, and a legislative classification that denies limitation protection to strangers to prior proceedings is unreasonable and offends article 14.

---