https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190281 Where reassessment proceedings had already been validly initiated under section 34 and remained pending, income could not again be treated as escaped assessment on the same facts to justify a fresh notice. The Calcutta HC held that a transfer of the case under section 5(7A) did not extinguish the pending proceedings or create a new limitation period. The assessment had to be completed within the time running from the first valid notice, and the revenue could not extend the period by issuing a later notice shortly before expiry. The later notice and the assessment made under it were therefore barred by limitation and invalid. en-us Wed, 10 Jan 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Feb 2017 17:57:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190281 Where reassessment proceedings had already been validly initiated under section 34 and remained pending, income could not again be treated as escaped assessment on the same facts to justify a fresh notice. The Calcutta HC held that a transfer of the case under section 5(7A) did not extinguish the pending proceedings or create a new limitation period. The assessment had to be completed within the time running from the first valid notice, and the revenue could not extend the period by issuing a later notice shortly before expiry. The later notice and the assessment made under it were therefore barred by limitation and invalid. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 10 Jan 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190281