Section 31 of the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1953 applies sub-sections (1) and (3) of S. 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as it stood after the 1948 amendment, to assessment proceedings in respect of years ending before April 1, 1948 where the proceedings commenced after September 8, 1948 and makes the validity of the proceedings depend on that section as so amended.

Judgment

S. K. DAS, J. 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: in which judgment has been delivered to-day. I think that the High Court correctly answered the question referred to it.

4. I would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.

KAPUR, J. :

5. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madras. The appellant is the Commissioner of Income-tax and the respondent is the assessee and the year of assessment is 1942-43.

6. The respondent is the wife of one Sheikh Abdul Khadar who was residing abroad in Bangkok from September 1940 to July 1947 During the period he remitted monies in the name of his agent for payment to the respondent. In the account year the aggregate amount so remitted was Rs. 9,180/-. The respondent submitted no return of her income as she was bound to do and the amount became taxable under S. 4 (2) of the Income-tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the "Act". In 1949 the Income-tax Officer on receipt of definite information that such income had escaped assessment issued a notice under S. 34 of the Act as amended by the Amending Act of 1948 and an appeal was taken to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but the assessment was confirmed. A further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, was also unsuccessful. The reference was thereupon made to the High Court and one of the questions referred was :-.

"Whether the proceedings under section 34 of thee Indian Income-tax Act initiated on 25th July, 1949 to assess the amount of Rs. 9,180/which escaped assessment during the year 1942-43 by failure to submit a voluntary return are valid in law"?

It was held that the limitation of eight years prescribed by Section 34 as amended by the Amending Act of 1948 did not apply to the case of the assessee which was a case of failure to submit the return and the period of four years had expired before March 30,, 1948 when the am