COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS versus JANABHA MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN NACHIAR AMMAL

Citation: [1964] 1 S.C.R. 137 · Decided: 12-12-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

\ ' 
\ 
I 
1 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
137 
C...OMMISSIONER- OF INCOME.TAX,~· 
.\' 
MADRAS 
JANABHA. l\1UHAMMAD HUSSAIN 
NACHIAR Al\1MAL 
(S; K: DAS,J. L. KAPUR, A. K. SARKAR, 
M. IfIDAYATULLAH and RAGIIUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) 
Income-tax-Escaped income-Failure to submit retunl.-
- Kotice to 
reasaess-Validity-Retro.,pective operation-Indian 
Income-tax and Business Profits Taz (Amendment) Act, 1948 
(48 of 1948), s. 8-Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1953 
(25of1953), s. 31-Indian Income-tax Act, 1~22 (11,,o/1922), 
•· 34, as amended.· 
. , 
· 
. 
-
- .. -
In th~ year of acrouut relevant to the aSl!essment year 1942-
43, the assessee received Rs. 9,180{-, but submitted no return -of 
her income. On July 25, 1949, the Income-tax Ofhcer, on 
receipt of definite information that such income had escaped 
assessment, issued a notice -to her under s. 34 of the Indian 
Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended by the Indian Income-tax 
and Business Profits Tax (Amendment) Act, 1948. Thereafter, 
she was assessed on the aforesaid income on October 24, 1949. 
She challenged the validity of the proceedings under s, 34 initia-
ted on July 25, 1949, on the grounds, that the right to revive 
the assessment was governed by the provisions of s. 34, before 
it was amended in 1948, under which the period of limitation -
prescribed was four years in the case of a failure to file a return 
and that this period having expired on March 31, 1947, and 
the Amending Act of 1948 having come into - force only 
March 30, 1948, the eight years' period provided therein could 
not be invoked .. For the Income-tax Authorities, the validity 
of the notice was sought to be sustained by the additional 
ground that; in any case, s.' 31 of the Indian Income-tax 
(Amendment) Act, 1953, validated the notice. 
·' -
\ 
\
Held (per 'Sarkar,. Hidayatullah and Reghubar Dayal,.U., 
Das and Kapur,.U., dissenting), thats. 34 of the Indian Incomc-
tax and Business Profits Tax (Amendment) Act, 1948, was appli-
cable to the proceedings in the present case and that the notice 
dated July 25, 1949, was valid. 
,
1962 
. D1cnn1'tr, 12 • 
1961 
~ofbt­
__ 
,Mffllnl 
y, 
JtllldM MrJ..M 
H"'uia Hotitll 
.cm-I 
138 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1964] VOIM 
Per Das and Kapur, lJ.-The limitation of eight years 
prescribed by s. 34 as amended by the Amending Act of J 948 
did not apply to the present assesscc which was a ~ 
of failure 
to submit the return, when the period of four ycan had expired 
bcfo1e March 30, 1948, when the amendment Ins. 34 was made 
by the Amending Act of 1948. Section 31 of the Amending 
Act of 1953 did not enlarge the acopc of the amcnmd s. 34, and 
did not valldate the notice dated July 25, 1949. 
Per Sarkar, J.-By virtue of s. 31 of the Amending Act 
of 1953, a notice isrued and an order of assessment made in 
respect of a year ended before April I, 1948, where the procee-
dings were conuncnccd after September 8, 1948, were to be held 
valid if the notice was issued in accordance with sub-a. (I) of 
a. 34 as it stood after 1948 amendment and the assessment was 
completed in pursuance of •uch notice within the time spcci6cd 
in rub-s. (3). The notice and aascssment in the present caac 
satisfied all th= conditions and, therefore, s. 34 as amended in 
1948 was applicable. Such a noiice and an assc'9mcnt order 
valid under s. 34 as amended In 1948 would be valid even If 
the time prescribed in respect of them by a. 34 as it 1tood bcf.>re' 
the 1948 amendment had expired. 
Per Hidayatullah and Raghubar Dayal, .U .-The action 
was taken after 1948 amendment by which income, profits and 
gains which had escaped assessment by reason of the omi· 
ssion or failure of the as9CSSCC to make a return of the income 
could be brought to tax after serving a notice within eight yean 
from the end of the relevant year. Hence the notice In 1949 
was within eight years from 1942-43 and was validly isrucd. 
S. C. Pr(j/jhar, Income-tax Officer v. V"""ntaen D1DtJrlcadaa, 
(1964] Vol. I S.C.R. 29., relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 509 of 1958. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated 
February 22, 1956, of the Madras High Court in 
Case referred No. 66/52. 
K. N. Rajagopal Sastri and P. D. Menon, for 
appellant. 
T. S. Venkataraman and M. K. Ramamurthi, for 
respondents. 
• 
' 
1 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
139 
1962. December 12.-The following judgments 
were delivered. S. K. Das J., J. L. Kapur J., and 
A. K. Sarkar, J., delivered separate judgments. T

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.