Successive reassessment notices under income tax law valid despite pending earlier proceedings; no statutory bar on fresh notice.

A second notice under section 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act was treated as valid because the provision imposed no limit on the number of reassessment notices that could be issued within the prescribed time. Pending proceedings from an earlier notice did not bar a fresh notice, since the statute allowed reassessment whenever escaped income came to light. The proviso to section 34(3) governed only the time for completing reassessment and did not restrict issuance of another notice. The authority cited on pending original assessment proceedings was distinguished as inapplicable to successive notices.

---

---

Issues: Whether a second notice issued under section 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act was invalid because proceedings initiated by an earlier notice under the same provision were still pending and had not been completed.

Analysis: Section 34(1) conferred power to issue notice where income had escaped assessment, and the provision imposed no limit on the number of notices that could be issued within the prescribed time. The pendency of proceedings initiated by an earlier notice did not create a bar to a fresh notice, because the statute permitted reassessment whenever escaped income came to light. The proviso to section 34(3) dealt only with the time for completion of reassessment and did not restrict the issuance of another notice. The cited authority on original assessment pending proceedings was distinguishable because it did not govern successive notices under section 34.

Conclusion: The second notice was valid, and the question was answered against the assessee.

---