Limitation extension cannot revive a barred assessment unless retrospective revival is clearly stated in the statute.

An amendment extending limitation does not revive an assessment that was already barred under the earlier law unless retrospective revival is stated in clear terms. The Patna HC held that once the limitation period under the unamended section 34(3) had expired, the assessee acquired a vested protection against assessment, which could not be removed by implication through the later retrospective amendment. The assessment made after expiry of the original period was therefore time-barred and invalid, and the referred question was answered in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amended proviso to section 34(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act could be applied so as to validate an assessment made after the original period of limitation had already expired.

Analysis: The assessment year in question had already become barred under the unamended section 34(3) before the Amending Act took effect with retrospective operation from 1 April 1952. Although limitation is generally procedural, a later amendment cannot revive a right to assess that has already been lost under the prior law unless the statute clearly so provides. The right that had accrued in favour of the assessee when the limitation period expired could not be taken away by implication, and the amendment was not construed as extending backwards so as to reopen a finally barred matter.

Conclusion: The assessment made on 27 November 1953 was time-barred and invalid, and the answer to the referred question was against the Income-tax Department and in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory amendment extending limitation does not revive a proceeding already barred under the earlier law unless such retrospective revival is expressed in clear terms.

---