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 notice dated March 2, 1960, issued under section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 for assessment year 1950-51 was barred by limitation, and whether the bar was saved by section 34(4) or by the second proviso to section 34(3).
Analysis: The assessment year ended on March 31, 1951, and the notice was issued more than eight years later, so it was prima facie time-barred under the first proviso to section 34(1)(a). Section 34(4) could not assist the Revenue because its protection, read with the amended scheme, was confined to cases where escaped income was of the requisite magnitude, and the escaped amount here was far below one lakh of rupees. The second proviso to section 34(3) also did not apply because the earlier Tribunal order contained neither a finding that the sum of Rs. 21,079 represented the assessee's income nor a direction against the assessee within the meaning of that proviso.
Conclusion: The notice was time-barred and was not saved by section 34(4) or by the second proviso to section 34(3); the answer was in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment notice issued beyond the statutory limitation period remains barred unless the case strictly falls within the limited saving provisions, and the second proviso to section 34(3) operates only where there is an actual finding or direction relevant to the assessee.