Original assessment limitation under tax law must not be imported from escaped-assessment provisions without clear statutory language.

Section 11(1) of the Business Profits Tax Act was construed as governing original assessments without any implied four-year limitation, while section 14 was treated as applying only to escaped, under-assessed, or reopened matters after assessment machinery had already been set in motion. The majority stressed the different statutory fields of the two provisions, the distinction between belief under section 11 and definite information under section 14, and declined to import the section 14 time bar into section 11. On that construction, "escaped assessment" did not cover cases where no prior assessment had begun, though one judge dissented and would have applied section 14 to the initiation of proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether a notice under section 11(1) of the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947 for an original assessment could be issued without being controlled by the four-year limit in section 14, and whether section 14 applied only to reopened assessments after a prior assessment.

Analysis: The majority held that section 11(1) governed original assessments and contained no period of limitation, while section 14 was confined to cases where profits had already been brought to the assessment process and had thereafter escaped assessment, been under-assessed, or obtained excessive relief. The Act's scheme, the distinction between belief under section 11 and definite information under section 14, and the inapplicability of importing the limitation in section 14 into section 11 led to the conclusion that the two provisions operated in different fields. The majority also treated the expression "escaped assessment" as covering only reopened matters and not cases where no prior assessment had been initiated. One judge dissented and would have held that section 14 controlled the initiation of proceedings in the present case.

Conclusion: The notice under section 11(1) was validly within jurisdiction on the majority view, but the appeal failed because the majority ultimately held that the assessment sought to be made was without jurisdiction and that the assessee succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The majority construed section 11(1) as permitting an original assessment without the section 14 time bar, while confining section 14 to escaped or reopened assessments after prior assessment machinery had been set in motion; on that construction, the appeal was dismissed and the assessee's objection succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: In a taxing statute, a provision authorising original assessment on belief cannot be controlled by a separate limitation provision governing escaped or reopened assessments unless the statute clearly so provides; "escaped assessment" is confined to cases where the assessment process had previously been set in motion and later proved ineffective or incomplete.

---