Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the notice issued under section 34(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, for assessment year 1949-50 was barred by limitation and whether it was saved by the second proviso to section 34(3) or by section 4 of the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1959.
Analysis: The notice was issued more than eight years after the relevant assessment year, and the escaped income was admittedly below rupees one lakh. Under the amended section 34(1)(a) read with its proviso, such a notice could not be issued after the prescribed period. The saving proviso to section 34(3) applied only to an assessment or reassessment made in consequence of a finding or direction relating to the very year under appeal, and a direction to assess the amount in another year did not remove the bar of limitation for that other year. The later validating provisions in section 2 and section 4 of the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1959, did not apply to this notice on its facts and timing.
Conclusion: The notice was invalid and without jurisdiction; the objection to limitation succeeded in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The reassessment notice could not be sustained in law, and the challenge to it was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment notice issued beyond the statutory time-limit cannot be saved by the proviso to section 34(3) unless the relevant finding or direction pertains to the same assessment year, and a later validating provision does not apply unless its conditions are strictly satisfied.