Rectification powers cannot reopen time-barred individual assessments beyond the limited scope of the firm-related provision.

Proceedings aimed at disturbing assessments completed before the commencement of the 1961 Act were held to remain governed by the Income-tax Act, 1922, because the saving provision in section 297 did not displace the operation of section 6 of the General Clauses Act. Rectification powers were also confined to their statutory purpose: section 35(5) applied only to give effect to a firm's assessment in relation to a partner's share income and could not be used to reopen time-barred or unrelated errors in a partner's completed individual assessment. Section 155 of the 1961 Act likewise afforded no jurisdiction to revise those earlier completed assessments.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proceedings initiated by the Income-tax Officer were governed by the Income-tax Act, 1922 or the Income-tax Act, 1961; and (ii) whether the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to reopen or amend completed individual assessments by invoking section 35(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 or section 155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the proceedings initiated by the Income-tax Officer were governed by the Income-tax Act, 1922 or the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The proceedings sought to disturb completed assessments made before the commencement of the 1961 Act and were founded on appellate orders passed before that Act came into force. The saving provisions in section 297 of the 1961 Act did not evince a contrary intention sufficient to displace the operation of section 6 of the General Clauses Act. The Court held that the proceedings were in substance proceedings for assessment and that, on the facts, the rights and liabilities created under the repealed Act were preserved.

Conclusion: The proceedings were governed by the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Issue (ii): Whether the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to reopen or amend completed individual assessments by invoking section 35(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 or section 155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 35(1) dealt with mistakes apparent from the record of the individual assessment and was subject to its own limitation period, while section 35(5) was confined to rectification consequent upon the assessment or reassessment of the firm and could not be used to resurrect time-barred errors in the partner's completed assessment. The provision was intended only to give effect to the partner's share income being correctly reflected after the firm's assessment, not to authorise fresh reopening of unrelated matters in the partner's assessment. For the assessment year 1951-52, the completed assessment predated the retrospective operation of section 35(5) and therefore fell outside its scope. The attempted action under section 155 of the 1961 Act to revise the earlier completed assessment was likewise without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to reopen or amend the completed assessments in the manner attempted.

Final Conclusion: The impugned proceedings were illegal and beyond jurisdiction, and the assessee was entitled to relief in all the petitions, with certiorari for the completed order and prohibition against further action in the remaining matters.

Ratio Decidendi: A rectification provision tied to the firm's later assessment can be used only for the limited purpose for which it was enacted and cannot be stretched to reopen time-barred or unrelated errors in a partner's final individual assessment; completed assessments made before the effective retrospective date of the provision remain outside its reach.

---