S KUMARASWAMY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference raises a question of limitation under the Travancore Income-tax Act, 1121. We are concerned with the assessment years 1122 to 1124, Malayalam Era, corresponding to 1948-49 to 1950-51, the accounting period in each of the years commencing from August 17. Originally the assessments for these years were made on September 10, 1949, July 31, 1952 and November 29, 1952, respectively. In purported exercise of the power under section 47, the assessments were reopened and revised orders were made on July 12, 1955, in respect of the first year and July 29, 1955, in respect of the other years. By section 13 of the Finance Act, 1950"Whether the assessments made for the years 1122 to 1124 (Malayalam) on July 12, 1955, and July 29, 1955, are within time ?" *In our opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal is correct. Section 47(1) of the Travancore Act is worded more or less similar to section 34(1) and says that where the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income, he can serve on the assessee a notice at any time within eight years and proceed to assess or reassess such incomeSub-section (2) reads"No order of assessment under section 30 or of assessment or reassessment under sub-section (1) of this section shall be made after the expiry, in any case to which clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 41 applies, of eight years, and in any other case, of four years from the end of the year in which the income, profits or gains were first assessableProvided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to a reassessment made in pursuance of an order under section 44, section 45 or section 113." *THIS sub-section virtually corresponds to section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Section 41(1)(c) is to the effect that, if the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income, he may direct the assessee to pay penalty assessed at a certain rate. The Tribunal thought that what section 13 of the Finance Act, 1950, saved in terms was confined to the provisions of the Travancore Act relating to levy, assessment and collection of income-tax and super-tax in respect of the years prior to 1950-51 and that meant the saving included section 41 and 47. We think as we said, that is the correct view to takeIn Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhikaji Dadabhai and Co. the Supreme Court had to consider the effect of section 13(1) in relation to the penalty provision in the Hyderabad Income-tax Act, 1357-F. Repelling an argument that this provision was not saved by section 13 of the Finance Act, 1950.