https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181677 Section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 required a reassessment notice to be served within the prescribed limitation period, and the distinction between "served" in sub-section (1) and "issued" in the proviso to section 34(3) was treated as deliberate. Earlier authority was relied on to show that jurisdiction to reopen an assessment arises only on timely service, and the word "issued" in the proviso could not be used to dilute the statutory requirement of service. Section 31 of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1953, which referred to notices "issued" under sub-section (1), did not validate late service. en-us Wed, 20 Jan 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Apr 2016 17:50:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181677 Section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 required a reassessment notice to be served within the prescribed limitation period, and the distinction between "served" in sub-section (1) and "issued" in the proviso to section 34(3) was treated as deliberate. Earlier authority was relied on to show that jurisdiction to reopen an assessment arises only on timely service, and the word "issued" in the proviso could not be used to dilute the statutory requirement of service. Section 31 of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1953, which referred to notices "issued" under sub-section (1), did not validate late service. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 20 Jan 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181677