Saving provision cannot revive a time-barred reopening power under the repealed income-tax law.

Section 297(2)(d)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was construed not to authorise a reopening notice under section 148 where the power to reopen had already become time-barred under section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 before the 1961 Act commenced. The saving provision was treated as operating only where the right to reopen was still alive under the repealed law, and it was not read as reviving an expired remedy by implication. On that basis, a notice cannot validly reopen an assessment already barred under the 1922 Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 297(2)(d)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 authorised issuance of a notice under section 148 to reopen an assessment when the power to reopen had already become barred under section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 before the new Act came into force.

Analysis: The saving provision in section 297(2)(d)(ii) was construed as applying only to cases where the right to reopen was still alive under the repealed Act at the commencement of the 1961 Act. A construction that would revive a barred remedy would give the provision retrospective operation beyond its language or necessary implication. The earlier authority on the effect of amended limitation provisions was applied to hold that an expired power to reopen is not revived merely because the new Act prescribes a longer limitation period.

Conclusion: The notice under section 148 could not validly be issued to reopen an assessment that was already time-barred under the 1922 Act, and the notices challenged by the assessee were rightly quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A saving or transitional provision will not be read as reviving a remedy to reopen assessment that had already become barred under the repealed law unless such revival is expressly provided or necessarily implied.

---