AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1965 (1) TMI 71
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was not served on the assessee within four years from the end of the assessment year 1947-48 ?" The question on the facts arises under section 34(1)(b ) of Act 11 of 1922. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. In its return for the assessment year 1947-48, among other incomes, it showed its share of profits from the income of a registered firm with the style of Jokhiram-Balmukand, Pilkhuwa, as Rs. 2,258. At that time the assessment on that firm had not yet been made. Subsequently, when assessment of the income of that firm was made, the share of the assessee's profit was computed at Rs. 6,843. On March 31, 1952, a notice was issued by the Income-tax Officer under section 34(1)(b) and section 22(1) of Act 11 of 1922 calling upon t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the part of the assessee, the Income-tax . Officer has in consequence of information in his possession reason to believe that income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax have escaped assessment for any year, or have been under-assessed, or assessed at too low a rate, or have been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act, or that excessive loss or depreciation allowance has been computed, he may in cases falling under clause (a) at any time within eight years and in cases falling under clause (b) at any time within four years of the end of that year, serve on the assessee, or, if the assessee is a company, on the principal officer thereof, a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ord used in sub-section (1) of section 34 is "serve". In Sri Niwas's case (supra) a similar question came up for consideration before the learned judges but in relation to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 34. It was held that an Income-tax Officer has jurisdiction to take proceedings under that provision when notice has been served on the assessee within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 34 and, consequently, within the time stated in it. If no such notice has been served within that time, the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer under sub-section (1) of section 34 is not attracted. An argument was urged before the learned judges with reference to the use of the word "issued" in the first proviso to sub-section (3) of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9; used in section 34 with the expression 'issued' used in the proviso to sub-section (3). Now we must frankly confess that we find it difficult to understand why the legislature has used in the proviso the expression 'where a notice under sub-section (1) has been issued within the time therein limited'. In sub-section (1) no time is limited for the issue of the notice : time is only limited for the service of the notice ; and therefore it is more appropriate that the expression 'issued' used in the proviso to sub-section (3) should be equated with the expression 'served' rather than that the expression 'served' used in sub-section (1) should be equated with the expression 'issued' used in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se, the answer to the question under reference has to be in the affirmative. But in the end the learned counsel for the Commissioner of Income-tax refers to section 31 of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1953 (Act 25 of 1953), and contends that, in view of the provisions of this validating section, the view taken by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal cannot be maintained. Section 31 of Act 25 of 1953, in so far as relevant here, reads : "For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 34 of the principal Act shall apply and shall be deemed always to have been applied to any assessment or reassessment for any year ending before the first day of April, 1948, in any case w....