S. K. Das, J. - (1.) The facts out of which these two appeals have arisen have been stated in the judgment of my learned brother Kapur, J., and as I am in full agreement with the conclusion reached by him, I need not re-state the facts.
(2.) The relevant assessment years were 1946-1947 and 1947-1948. The assessment orders were made on November 27, 1953. It is obvious that the assessments were not made within the time prescribed by sub-section (3) of Section 34, the period being four years in this case. The Tribunal relied on the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 34 as amended by the Amending Act of 1953 which came into force on April 1, 1952. For reasons which I have given in S. C. Prashar vs. Vasantsen Dwarkadas, Civil Appeal No. 705 of 1957 in which judgment has been delivered to-day, the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 34 does not revive a remedy which became barred before April 1, 1952, when the amended proviso came into force.
(3.) Next, the appellant relied on Section 31 of the Amending Act of 1953. I agree with my learned brother Kapur J., that the question of law which was referred to the High Court does not take in the point now sought to be urged before us. Secondly, for reasons given by me in Civil Appeal No. 705 of 1957 (supra), I do not think that Section 31 saves the assessment.;