https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8780 A reassessment validly initiated under section 34(1)(a) for nondisclosure of interest income does not permit the Income-tax Officer to bypass the separate four-year limitation applicable to items falling only under section 34(1)(b). Once reassessment is lawfully opened, escaped income may be examined, but the statutory distinction between clauses (a) and (b) remains controlling. Losses fully disclosed in the original assessment could not therefore be reopened and disallowed under clause (b) after the expiry of four years. The four-year bar was treated as a substantive fetter on jurisdiction, and the reassessment of the sugar mill losses was held invalid. en-us Mon, 21 Aug 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Jan 2026 16:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8780 A reassessment validly initiated under section 34(1)(a) for nondisclosure of interest income does not permit the Income-tax Officer to bypass the separate four-year limitation applicable to items falling only under section 34(1)(b). Once reassessment is lawfully opened, escaped income may be examined, but the statutory distinction between clauses (a) and (b) remains controlling. Losses fully disclosed in the original assessment could not therefore be reopened and disallowed under clause (b) after the expiry of four years. The four-year bar was treated as a substantive fetter on jurisdiction, and the reassessment of the sugar mill losses was held invalid. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 21 Aug 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8780