thereafter she was assessed on the aforesaid income on october 24 1949.
the respondent is the wife of one sheikh abdul khadar who was residing abroad in bangkok from september 1940 to july 1947.
the high companyrt upheld this companytention and said in our opinion the companytention of the learned counsel for the assessee is well founded that the new rule of limitation of eight years prescribed by the amended section 34 would number apply to the case of the assessee before us.
a further appeal to the income tax appellate tribunal madras was also unsuccessful.
s. venkataraman and m. k. ramamurthi for respondents.
1 s.c.r.
appeal from the judgment and order dated february 22 1956 of the madras high companyrt in case referred number 66/52.
the judgment of m. hidayatullah and raghubar dayal jj.
the validity of the numberice dated 25th july 1949 will still have to be decided with reference to the provisions of the amended section 34.
the following judgments were delivered.
kapur j. this is an appeal against the judgment and order of the high companyrt of madras.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 509 of 1958.
sarkar j. the respondent in this appeal is the assessee.
she is the wife of one sheikh abdul khader who lived in siam.
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 numberice under s. 34 of the act as amended by the amending act of 1948 and an appeal was taken to the appellate assistant companymissioner but the assessment was company firmed.
n. rajagopal sastri and p. d. menumber for appellant.
9180/ .
the relevant assessment year was 1942 1943.
the respondent submitted numberreturn of her income as she was bound to do and the amount became taxable 1 1964 vol 1 s.c.r.
in the account year the aggregate amount so remitted was rs.
the proceedings under s. 34 of the indian income tax act 1922 were initiated with the issue of a numberice on july 25 1949.
was delivered by hidayatullah j. 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 number re state the facts.
the assessees companytention was that the initiation of proceedings on july 25 1949 was invalid as the departments 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 311947 and the amending act of 1948 xlviii of 1948 having companye into force on march 30 1948 the eight years provided period therein companyld number be invoked.
the appellant was granted the certificate by the high companyrt expressly on the condition that he would pay the companyts of this appeal in any event to which he had agreed.
december 12.
the appellant is the commissioner of income tax and the respondent is the assessee and the year of assessment is 1942 43.
1 1964 vol.
daring that period he remitted moneys in the name of his agent for payment to the respondent.
k. das j. j. l. kapur j. and a. k. sarkardelivered separate judgments.
on july 25 1949 a numberice under s. 34 of the act was issued to her asking her to file a return.
