Reassessment limitation cannot be revived by a later amendment unless retrospective effect is clearly expressed.

An amendment extending the time limit for issuing reassessment notices did not revive a power that had already become barred under the unamended Income-tax Act, 1922. The Supreme Court noted that the period for issuing notice against a person treated as agent of non-residents expired on 31 March 1956, and section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, was not expressed with retrospective effect sufficient to reopen barred proceedings. A notice issued after expiry of the earlier limitation was therefore invalid, and the reassessment proceeding remained barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Income-tax Officer could validly issue a notice under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, after the period prescribed under the unamended law had expired, by relying on the extended period introduced by section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, for treating the assessee as agent of non-resident persons under section 43.

Analysis: The period under the unamended section 34 for issuing notice against a person deemed to be an agent of a non-resident expired on 31 March 1956. The amendment by section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, introduced a longer period, but it was not given such retrospectivity as to revive proceedings that had already become barred. The power to commence reassessment proceedings having lapsed under the earlier law, the later amendment could not be construed as authorising a fresh notice after expiry of the pre-existing time limit.

Conclusion: The notice issued on 27 March 1957 was invalid, and the reassessment proceeding was barred; the contention of the Revenue failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An amending provision extending the time for initiating reassessment does not revive a power to issue notice that had already become barred under the prior law, unless the statute expressly or by clear implication gives that extended retrospectivity.

---