https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289941 The limitation period for notice under Section 34(1)(b) was held to run from the assessee's assessment year, not from the date of a Section 23-A order against the company. Section 23-A was treated as procedural and not as authority to reopen the shareholder's assessment. Because the notice was served after the four-year period, valid service of notice, as a condition precedent to jurisdiction under Section 34, was absent. The notice was therefore time-barred, the reassessment lacked jurisdiction, and the reassessment was invalidated in favour of the assessee. en-us Wed, 16 Mar 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 31 Aug 2020 15:32:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289941 The limitation period for notice under Section 34(1)(b) was held to run from the assessee's assessment year, not from the date of a Section 23-A order against the company. Section 23-A was treated as procedural and not as authority to reopen the shareholder's assessment. Because the notice was served after the four-year period, valid service of notice, as a condition precedent to jurisdiction under Section 34, was absent. The notice was therefore time-barred, the reassessment lacked jurisdiction, and the reassessment was invalidated in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 16 Mar 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289941