Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the notice under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 for the assessment year 1952-53 and the consequent inclusion of deemed dividend income were valid despite the lapse of four years from the end of the assessment year.
Analysis: The reassessment was initiated long after the expiry of the normal period of limitation under section 34(3). The only possible basis for saving limitation was the second proviso to section 34(3), but the appellate authority's observation that the dividend pertained to assessment year 1952-53, and its direction to reopen that year, went beyond the jurisdiction of that authority for the purpose of extending limitation. A finding or direction for the purposes of the proviso must remain confined to matters within the appellate proceeding and the relevant assessment year; an extra-jurisdictional observation cannot remove the statutory bar.
Conclusion: The notice under section 34(1) was time-barred and the deemed dividend could not validly be included in the assessee's assessment for 1952-53.
Ratio Decidendi: A finding or direction relied upon to extend the period of reassessment limitation must be one lawfully made within the appellate authority's jurisdiction and confined to the relevant assessment year; an extraneous direction cannot save a barred reassessment.