DEBI DUTTA MOODY Vs. T BELLAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in this case arc shortly as follows: The petitioner carries on business in Calcutta. On 29-1-1951, ho was assessed for income-tax for the assessment year 1947-48 on a total income of Rs. 1,15,5327- by the Income-tax Officer-Companies District IV, Calcutta. On the 6th of February 1951, notice under Section 29 of the Indian Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") was issued demanding payment of Rs. 39,337/4/0 as tax. The petitioner paid that amount. On the 19th of March 1956, a notice was issued upon the petitioner under Section 34 of the said Act. In the said notice it was alleged that the Income-tax Officer had reason to believe that the income of the petitioner assessable to income-tax for the assessment year 1947-48 had escaped assessment and he proposed to re-assess the said income which had escaped assessment. The petitioner was called upon to make a return in the prescribed form. Although the notice was issued on 19-3-1956, it is not disputed and therefore it must be deemed to be admitted, that the notice was served upon the petitioner on 2-4-1956. A further notice under Section 22 (4) of the Act was issued on 10-1-1957. On 22-1-1957, third notice was issued under Section 23 (2) of the said Act.

(2.) The short point that calls for decision in this case turns upon an amendment of Section 34 of the said Act. The relevant provision of Section 34 as it stood before the amendment effected by Section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, which came into operation on 1-4-1956 was as follows:

(3.) This section was amended by Section 18 of the Finance Act No. XVIII of 1956 dated 27-4-1956. Under Section 38 thereof the amendment was to come into force from 1-4-1956. Section 34 as amended now stands as follows: