Limitation-saving proviso for reassessment applies only to valid appellate findings, so a time-barred notice was quashed.

The limitation-saving proviso to section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 applies only where reassessment directly and necessarily follows a valid appellate finding or direction within jurisdiction. A reassessment notice for an earlier year was therefore not protected where the appellate order only found that the amount was not income of the later year, and any further observation about another year was outside the appellate authority's power. Because the notice was issued after limitation had expired and depended on independent factual questions, it was time-barred. The High Court also treated writ relief as available against a jurisdictionally invalid notice and quashed the reassessment proceedings under article 226.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a notice for reassessment for assessment year 1946-47 was saved by the second proviso to section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, on the footing that it was issued in consequence of a finding in the appellate order relating to assessment year 1947-48. (ii) Whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the notice and restrain reassessment proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether a notice for reassessment for assessment year 1946-47 was saved by the second proviso to section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, on the footing that it was issued in consequence of a finding in the appellate order relating to assessment year 1947-48.

Analysis: The limitation under section 34(1)(a) had expired before the impugned notice was issued. The second proviso to section 34(3) applies only where the later assessment or reassessment is made in consequence of, or to give effect to, a finding or direction contained in a valid appellate order. The relevant appellate finding was only that the sum in question was not income of the assessee for assessment year 1947-48. The further observation that it might relate to some other year was beyond the scope of the appellate authority's jurisdiction and could not be treated as a binding finding for purposes of the proviso. The notice for assessment year 1946-47 depended on independent facts, including escapement, disclosure, and year of accrual, and did not follow directly or causally from the appellate finding.

Conclusion: The proviso did not apply and the notice was barred by limitation; the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the notice and restrain reassessment proceedings.

Analysis: The existence of an ordinary statutory remedy did not preclude relief where the impugned notice was without jurisdiction and the assessee was exposed to unnecessary reassessment proceedings. A writ of certiorari was appropriate to quash the illegal notice, and once the notice itself was quashed there was no occasion for a separate writ of prohibition.

Conclusion: The court exercised writ jurisdiction in favour of the assessee and quashed the notice.

Final Conclusion: The impugned reassessment notice could not be sustained, and the assessee was entitled to relief under article 226 against the time-barred proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The limitation-saving proviso to section 34(3) applies only to reassessment that directly and necessarily flows from a competent appellate finding or direction within jurisdiction, and not to a fresh notice based on independent material or on an observation beyond the scope of the appellate decision.

---