Special reopening provisions prevail over general amendments, and war-year notices remained barred after the 1956 cutoff.

Section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was treated as a general reopening power, while section 34(1A) was a special, self-contained provision for war-year escaped income above Rs. 1,00,000 with an absolute cutoff of 31 March 1956. The later amendment to section 34(1)(a) was not read as reviving or extending a barred power where section 34(1A) exclusively applied, so notices for the war-year assessments were invalid. For the 1950-51 assessment year, section 34(1)(a) applied and the proviso's aggregate escaped income threshold could be met by including relevant escaped income beyond the eight-year period, so the notice was valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether notices issued under section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 could validly reopen assessments for the assessment years 1943-44 and 1946-47 after the 1956 amendment when no notice had been issued under section 34(1A) by 31 March 1956; (ii) Whether the notice for the assessment year 1950-51 was valid under section 34(1)(a), including the requirement in the proviso that the escaped income be Rs. 1,00,000 or more in the aggregate.

Issue (i): Whether notices issued under section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 could validly reopen assessments for the assessment years 1943-44 and 1946-47 after the 1956 amendment when no notice had been issued under section 34(1A) by 31 March 1956.

Analysis: Section 34(1)(a) was held to be a general reopening provision, while section 34(1A) was a special provision confined to escaped income of the war years exceeding Rs. 1,00,000. The special provision was treated as a self-contained code with its own conditions, safeguards, and an absolute outer limit of 31 March 1956. Applying the principle that a special provision prevails over a general one, the later enlargement of section 34(1)(a) could not be read as displacing or rendering redundant section 34(1A). The amendment to section 34(1)(a) did not contain language sufficient to revive or extend a barred power in respect of cases exclusively governed by section 34(1A), and no implied repeal was found.

Conclusion: The notices for the assessment years 1943-44 and 1946-47 were invalid and without jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the notice for the assessment year 1950-51 was valid under section 34(1)(a), including the requirement in the proviso that the escaped income be Rs. 1,00,000 or more in the aggregate.

Analysis: The assessment year 1950-51 did not fall within the war period and was therefore governed by section 34(1)(a). For the purpose of clause (ii) of the proviso, the aggregate escaped income was to be computed by taking into account the escaped income of the relevant assessment years beyond the eight-year period, even if some of those years could not themselves be reopened under section 34(1)(a). The proviso required the existence of aggregate escaped income of Rs. 1,00,000 or more, not that the entire aggregate must be independently assessable under the reopening machinery. On that basis, the statutory threshold was satisfied.

Conclusion: The notice for the assessment year 1950-51 was valid.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded only in part. The notices for the war-year assessments were quashed, while the notice for the assessment year 1950-51 was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later general reopening provision and an earlier special reopening provision cover overlapping subject-matter, the special provision continues to govern the class of cases it specifically addresses unless the legislature clearly indicates otherwise; a later general amendment does not by itself revive a time-barred power in those special cases.

---