- (1.) The facts of this appeal have been stated by my learned brother Kapur, J. and as I am in agreement with him, I need not re-state the facts.
(2.) The relevant assessment year was 1942-1943. The proceedings under S. 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 were initiated with the issue of a notice on July 25, 1949. The assessee's contention was that the initiation of proceedings on July 25, 1949 was invalid as the department's right to revive the assessment was governed by old S. 34 where the period of limitation prescribed was only four years in the case of a failure to file a return and this period having expired on March 31, 1947 and the Amending Act of 1948 (XLVIII of 1948) having come into force on March 30, 1948 the eight years' period provided therein could not be invoked. The High Court upheld this contention and said: "In our opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee is well founded, that the new rule of limitation of eight years prescribed by the amended S. 34 would not apply to the case of the assessee before us, whose was an instance of a failure to submit a return, when the period of four years had ran out long before 30th March 1948 when the amended S. 34 came into force as part of the Income-tax Act with effect from that date, 30th March 1948. The learned counsel for the Department next referred to S. 31 of Act XXV of 1953 in support of his contentions that the notice issued on 25th July 1949 was valid. The learned counsel himself had to realize that S. 31 of Act XXV of 1953 did not enlarge the scope of the amended S. 34; nor did it purport to amend it. The validity of the notice, dated 25th July 1949 will still have to be decided with reference to the provisions of the amended S. 34. Section 31 of Act XXV of 1953 does not therefore affect the question at issue' whether the extended period of limitation of eight years would apply to the assessee, when the period of limitation applicable to the assessee lad expired before the amended S. 34 came into force on 30th March, 1948."
(3.) For the reasons given by me in S. C. Prashar v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas, C. A. No. 705 of 1957, D/- 12-12-1962: (AIR 1963 SC 1356) in which judgment has been delivered to-day. I think that the High Court correctly answered the question referred to it.;