https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6610 The four-year limitation in section 34(3) was treated as governing the making of the assessment order, not the issuance of notice under section 23(2). Where concealment of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars was alleged and established, the Income-tax Officer could complete the assessment notwithstanding the ordinary four-year bar; if no such delinquency was proved, assessment after four years would be barred. A writ seeking refund was also declined because the petitioner had not first approached the departmental authorities for refund. en-us Mon, 22 Feb 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6610 The four-year limitation in section 34(3) was treated as governing the making of the assessment order, not the issuance of notice under section 23(2). Where concealment of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars was alleged and established, the Income-tax Officer could complete the assessment notwithstanding the ordinary four-year bar; if no such delinquency was proved, assessment after four years would be barred. A writ seeking refund was also declined because the petitioner had not first approached the departmental authorities for refund. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 22 Feb 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6610