We therefore re frame the question as follows : "Whether the Income tax Officer was in the circumstances of the case competent to initiate the proceeding under section 34 (I) (b) of the Indian Income tax Act for bringing to tax the excessive rebate granted to the assessee ?" Section 34(1) (b) of the Indian Income tax Act, as it stood at the relevant time, provided "If (a) (b) notwithstanding that there has been no omission or failure as mentioned in clause (a) on the part of the assessee, the Income tax Officer has in consequence of information in his possession reason to believe that income, profit% or gains chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment for any year, or have been under assessed, or assessed at too low a rate, or have been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act or that excessive loss or depreciation has been computed, he may in cases falling under clause (a) at any time and in cases falling under clause (b) at any time within four years of the end of that year, serve on the assessee, or, if the assessee is a company, on the principal officer 803 thereof, a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under subsection (2) of section 22 and may proceed to assess or reassess such income, profits or gains or recompute the loss or depreciation allowance; and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that sub section It was held by the High Court of Bombay in P. section Subraman yan, Income tax Officer, Companies Circle I (1) Bombay and Another vs Simplex Mills Ltd.(1) that "the relief referred to in section 34(1) (b) of the Income tax Act, 1922, can only be such relief as is granted to the assessee by reason of his income, profits and (rains being chargeable to tax.