The amendment of Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, by the Finance Act of 1956 removed the 8-year limitation period for serving notices under Section 34 (1) (a), and such notices could now be served at any time.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is Debi Dutt Moody. On or about the 29th January, 1951 the petitioner was assessed for income tax for the assessment year 1948/1949, on a total income of Rs. 79319/-, by the Income Tax Officer, Companies District IV, Calcutta. Thereafter, a notice under Section 29 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was served upon the petitioner for payment of the sum of Rs. 14,501/- as income tax. This amount was duly paid. On the 27th March, 1957 notice was issued under Section 34 of the said Act; to be precise, under Section 34 (l) (a ). One copy of the notice was sent by post and another copy was purported to have been served upon the petitioner personally on the 28th March, 1957. This service is disputed, and I shall have to deal with it in greater detail. The copy that was sent by post was received on the 4th April, 1957. One of the disputed points-raised in this application is as to whether the period of Limitation for 8 years applies to the re-opening of the assessment under Section 34 (l) (a ). If it does, then the service by post is, admittedly, too late. In such a case, the re-assessment can only be supported if there has been a valid service on the 28th March, 1957.

( 2 ) ON or about the 29th July, 1957 notice was issued under Section 28 (3) of the Act. On the 30th July, 1957 there was an ex parte assessment, because the petitioner did not comply with the notice purported to have been served upon him, and in this re-assessment, his total income was assessed at a very much higher figure than before. It is alleged that a sum of Rs. 53,987/- was added to his income, although the petitioner states that the said amount was not his income but the income of his wife Sm. Banaresi Devi. On the 8th August, 1957 the petitioner wrote a letter asking for the date of service of the notice under Section 22 (2), read with Section 34. On the 14th August, 1957 there was a reminder. It was pointed out that the assessment of the year 1948/1949 under Section 34 (1) (a) was time-barred. On the same date, notice was served upon the petitioner under Section 29 of the Act, asking for payment of Rs. 29,595. 94 np. , and it was intimated that if the said amount was not paid within the specified period, proceedings would be taken for levying a penalty.

( 3 ) ON the 20th August', 1957 the petitioner wrote a letter repeating that the notice under Section 34 was time-barred. On the 28th August, 1957 a reply was given by the Income Tax authorities, dealing with the letters of the 8th August, 14th August, 19th August, and 20th August. It was, inter alia, pointed out that the notice under Section 34 was personally served on the petitioner on the 28th March, 1957] and therefore the re-assessment was quite in-order and not time-barred. This rule was taken out by the petitioner on the 30th August, 1957 and, in effect, challenges the re-assessment under Section 34.

( 4 ) THE ground upon which this application is based is a simple one, namely, that the eight year period of limitation applies to the facts of this case, and that the notice was served beyond that date.

( 5 ) MR. Meyer, appearing on behalf of the respondent, argues as follows : Firstly, he states that the notice was served within time, because the notice was personally served on the 28th March, 1957 which was within the eight-year period. That this date is within the eighty year period is not disputed, but the factum of the service is disputed.

( 6 ) NEXT, Mr. Meyer argues that even if the service on the 28th March, 1957 was bad, the service by post on the 4th April, 1957 is quite sufficient, because, according to him, the eight years period of limitation no longer applied to the facts and circumstances of this case, as the result of an amendment of Section 34. Under the amended Act, it is sufficient if the notice is issued within 8 years. It may be served at any lime thereafter.

( 7 ) I shall first deal with the point of service. As stated above, if there has been a va