https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172514 Section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was upheld as a valid special reassessment provision because, on a proper construction, the words applying the Act "so far as may be" carried the ordinary assessment, appeal and reference machinery, so the provision did not create a separate discriminatory procedure under article 14. The extended reach to a narrower class of escaped war-time incomes was held to have a rational nexus with the legislative object. The challenge based on alleged bias of the Income-tax Officer also failed: assessment proceedings were treated as quasi-judicial, but the statutory scheme and the availability of appeal and High Court reference were sufficient safeguards. The majority upheld the notices and proceedings; one judge dissented. en-us Fri, 15 May 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:35:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172514 Section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was upheld as a valid special reassessment provision because, on a proper construction, the words applying the Act "so far as may be" carried the ordinary assessment, appeal and reference machinery, so the provision did not create a separate discriminatory procedure under article 14. The extended reach to a narrower class of escaped war-time incomes was held to have a rational nexus with the legislative object. The challenge based on alleged bias of the Income-tax Officer also failed: assessment proceedings were treated as quasi-judicial, but the statutory scheme and the availability of appeal and High Court reference were sufficient safeguards. The majority upheld the notices and proceedings; one judge dissented. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 15 May 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172514