Case: The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Bombay City 1, Bombay Vs. M/S. Narsee Nagsee And Co., Bombay

Kapur, J. : (For himself and S.K. Das, J.)1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay passed in Income Tax Reference No. 31 of 1956. The appellant is the Commissioner of Income-tax and the respondent is a firm carrying on business in Bombay and the question for decision arises under the Business Profits Tax Act (Act XXI of 1947) hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The assessment relates to the year of assessment 1949-50 and the chargeable accounting period was from November 13, 1947 to October 31, 1948. On January 12, 1953, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice on the respondent under S. 11(1) of the Act in respect of the abovementioned chargeable accounting period which was served on the respondent on January 21, 1953. The respondent filed a return under protest. The assessment was completed by the Income-tax Officer on November 30, 1953.Against this order the respondent took an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the respondent was not liable to Business Profits Tax because it was beyond the period of four years limitation under S. 14 of the Act. This plea was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Income-tax Officer then appealed the Appellate Tribunal and it confirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. At the instance of the appellant a case was stated to the High Court of Bombay on the following two questions of law :(1)"Whether the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to assess the assessee firm under the Business Profits Tax Act by issue of a notice under S. 11(1) of the Business Profits Tax Act on 12-1-1953 in respect of the chargeable accounting period 13-11-1947 to 31-10-1948 without having recourse to S. 14 of the Business Profits Tax Act?(2)If the answer to Question No. 1 is in the negative whether the B. P. T. assessment could be considered to have been validly made?"The High Court modified the first question by deleting the words "without having recourse to S. 14 of the Business Profits Tax Act" and answered both the questions in the negative. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had held that as under S. 14 of the Act the period of limitation commenced from the end of the chargeable accounting period in question the notice under S. 11(1) had to be issued before that period. The High Court did not accept this view. It held that both Ss. 11 and 14 had to be read together and the mention of four years in S. 14 was an important indication of the period of limitation in regard to the issue of notice under S. 11 also and further if profits which escaped assessment as in the present case, could only be taxed within four years of the end of the chargeable accounting period because of S. 14 of the Act,then inferentially the escape of assessment must be at sometime anterior to the period mentioned in S. 14 and as on the facts of the present case the notice had been issued four years after the close of the chargeable accounting period the notice under S. 11 was not valid. Against this order the appellant has come in appeal to this Court on a certificate, of the High Court.3. It is submitted by the appellant that though Ss. 11 and 14 may have to be read together, they apply to different sets of circumstances; S. 11 applies to a case where the Income-tax Officer requires any person whom he believes to be engaged in any business to which the Act applies or to have been so engaged during any chargeable accounting period and calls upon him to furnish a return with respect to such chargeable accounting period; and S. 14 applies to a case where, in consequence of definite information possessed by him, the Income-tax Officer discovers in regard to any chargeable accounting period that the profits of any business have escaped assessment. In other words S. 11 applies to original assessments after the first notice calling upon an assessee to make a return in regard to the profits of any chargeable accounting period and S. 14 applies where such notice was issued and it either ended in no assessment at all or there was under-assessment etc. According to the argument of the appellant therefore there is no period of limitation prescribed by the Act for the first notice to furnish a return in regard to any chargeable accounting period but if such notice was given and a return was made and for any reason whatsoever the profits were not assessed or were under-assessed etc. then S. 14 comes into operation and notice has to be served within four years of the end of the chargeable accounting period in question.4. The provisions of the Act which arise for consideration are Ss. 2, 4, 5, 11 and 14. Section 2 is the definition section; S. 4 the charging section and S. 5 deals with the applicability of the Act. Section 11 provides for the "Issue of notice for assessment" and S. 14 is headed "profits escaping assessment". Section 2(2) defines accounting period and S. 2(4) chargeable, accounting period. Section 4 provides that in respect of any business to which the Act applies there shall be charged, levied and paid on the amount of taxable profit during any chargeable accounting period a tax equal to sixteen and two-third per cent, of the taxable profits, which in later years was fixed at a lower figure by the Finance Acts of 1948 and 1949. Under S. 5 the Act applies to every business of which any part of the profits made during the chargeable accounting period is chargeable to income-tax under S. 4(1) (b) (i) and (ii) or sub-cl. (c) of that sub-section. Sections 11(1) and 14 of the Act may now be quoted :Section 11(1) "The Income-tax Officer may, for the purposes of this Act, require any person whom he believes to be engaged in any business to which this Act applies, or to have been so engaged during any chargeable accounting period, to be otherwise liable to pay business profits tax, to furnish within such period, not being less then forty five days from the date of the service of the notice, as may be specified in the notice, a return in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner setting forth (along with such other particulars as may be provided for in the notice) with respect to any chargeable accounting period specified in the notice the profits (and taxable profits) of the business or the amount of deficiency, if any, available for relief under S. 6."Section 14. "If in consequence of definite information which has come into his possession, the Income-tax Officer discovers that profits of any chargeable accounting period chargeable to business profits tax have escaped assessment, or have been under-assessed or have been the subject of excessive relief he may at any time within four years of the end of the chargeable accounting period in question serve on the person liable to such tax a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under S. 11 and he may proceed to assess or reassess the amount of such profits liable to business profits tax, and the provisions of this Act shall so far as may be, apply as if the notice were a notice issued under that section."5. These sections lead to the conclusion that every business to which the Act applies is liable to the risk of being assessed to Business Profits Tax and it is well settled that income escapes assessment when the process of assessment has not been initiated as also in a case where it has resulted in no assessment after completion of the process of assessment. In our opinion the High Court was right when it held that Ss. 11 and 14 of the Act have to be read together.6. The Act and the Indian Income-tax Act are both taxing statutes operating on the same source, i.e., profits of business which is similarly defined in the two statutes. If the provisions relating to escaping of assessment in the two statutes i.e. in S. 14 of the former and in S. 34(1) of the latter as it existed after the amendment of 1939, employ the same language, they must receive the same interpretation and not be construed differently.Section 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act as amended in 1939 provided :Section 34(1) "If in consequence of definite information which has come into his possession the Income-tax Officer discovers that income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax have escaped assessment in any year or have been under-assessed or have been assessed at too low a rate, or have been the subject of excessive relief under this Act the Income-tax Officer may, in any case in which he has reason to believe that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars thereof, at any time within eight years; and in any other case at any time within four years of the end of that year serve on the person liable to pay tax on such income, profits or gains, or, in the case of a company, on the principal officer, thereof, a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under sub-sec. (2) of S. 22 and may proceed to assess or reassess such income, profits or gains 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."7. The words "escaping income" in the Indian Income Tax Act were interpreted as being applicable to a case where a person received notice under S. 22(2) of the Income-tax Act but the process ended in no assessment as to a case where there was no assessment at all because no notice was issued under S. 22(2) of the Income-tax Act; in other words it includes cases where the process of assessment did not commence because no notice was given under S. 22(2) of the Income-tax Act due to inadvertence, oversight, negligence or any other cause as to cases where such notice proved abortive or ineffective. Both are cases of escaped assessment, Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Pirojbai N. Contractor (sic) [Correct names of parties in 1940-8 ITR 222 are Commissioner of Income-tax, Burma v. Ved Nath Singh- Ed. A.I.R.] 1940-8 ITR 222 at p. 234 : (AIR 1940 Rang 65 at p. 66). In this Court these words were considered and interpreted in Kamal Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, B. and O., 1959-35 ITR 1 at p. 8 : (AIR 1959 SC 257 at p. 262). They were interpreted to comprise a case of no notice being given for the assessment and notice being given and resulting in no assessment, Gajendragadkar J., observed :"We see no justification for holding that cases of income escaping assessment must always be cases where income has not been assessed owing to inadvertence or oversight or owing to the fact that no return has been submitted. In our opinion, even in a case where a return has been submitted, if the Income-tax Officer erroneously fails to tax a part of assessable income it is a case where the said part of the income has escaped assessment. The appellants attempt to put a very narrow and artificial limitation on the meaning of the word "escape" in S. 12(1) (b) cannot therefore succeed".This passage was quoted with approval in another case by this Court in Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar, 1959-37 ITR 388 : (AIR 1959 SC 1303 ) (per Hidayatullah J.). Chatturam Horiram Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, B. and O. 1955-27 ITR 709 : ((S) AIR 1955 SC 619 ) was a somewhat different case. There assessment proceedings had been taken but had failed to result in a valid assessment owing to some lacuna other than that attributable to the Assessing Authorities and it was held to be a case of chargeable income escaping assessment and not a case of mere non-assessment of income-tax.8. All these cases show that the words "escaping assessment" apply equally to cases where a notice was received by the assessee but resulted in no assessment at all and to cases where due to any reason no notice was issued to the assessee and therefore there was no assessment of his income. It is also clear from the language of S. 14 of the Act that when a notice is issued under that section all the requirements of the notice under S. 11 apply and the Income-tax Officer has to proceed in the manner as if the notice was issued under S. 11. Therefore any advantage or relief which was available to the assessee under S. 11 as to allowable deductions, deficiency etc. would be equally available, if the notice is issued under. S. 14.9. The legislature has adopted the language of S. 34(1) of the Income-tax Act in S. 14 of the Act and it must therefore be considered to have adopted the construction of that section applied by the courts. Secondly this Court has construed the words "escaping assessment" as used in S. 34(1) of the Income-tax Act.The same words in the same context as employed in S. 14 of the Act must have the same meaning.It was submitted that in the present case a different meaning should be given because although in S. 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act and S. 14 of the Act, the words "escaping assessment" are used the language of S. 11(1) of the Act and of S. 22(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act is different in so far in the former the notice requires an assessee to furnish a return of the income of the previous years and in the latter he has to furnish the particulars with respect to any chargeable accounting period of the profits of the business. It becomes necessary therefore to examine the provisions of the Act as to the chargeable accounting periods and other provisions relevant thereto. In S. 2(2) of the Act "Accounting period" in relation to any business means any period which is or has been determined as the previous year for the purpose of the Indian Income-tax Act. Under S. 2(4) of the Act "Chargeable accounting period" means :(a) "any accounting period falling wholly within the term beginning on the first day of April 1946 and ending on the thirty first day of march 1947 ;(b) where any accounting period falls partly within and partly without the said term such part of that accounting period as falls within the said term".10. According to this definition therefore where the previous year was the financial year 1946-47 then the accounting period and the chargeable accounting period would be coincident i.e. they would both be 1946-47; but if the previous year was the calendar year or the Diwali year the accounting periods of nine months in the former case i.e. April 1, 1946 to December 31, 1946 and 7 months in the latter i.e., April 1, 1946 to November 1, 1946 would be the chargeable accounting periods for the purposes of the Act. The extent of the periods will vary according to the determination of the previous year under the Income-tax Act. It might be a full year or less which appears to be the reason for adopting the nomenclature which has been adopted in the Act instead of the previous year. It would be incongruous to call a period of less than a year as the previous year. For the chargeable accounting periods mentioned above the Business Profits Tax would be charged, levied and paid in the financial year 1947-48 at the rate mentioned in S. 4 of the Act on every business falling under S. 5. But for all these periods the assessment year would be the financial year 1947-48. Keeping this in view we may now see what changes were made by the Finance Act of 1948. By that Act the Act was continued for another one year and for the figure "1947" in the definition of chargeable accounting period in S. 2(4) (a) the figure "1948" was substituted and the following proviso was added :"Provided that where an accounting period falls partly before and partly after the end of March 1947 so much of that accounting period as falls before and so much of that accounting period as falls after the end of March 1947 shall be deemed each to be a separate chargeable period."11. By this proviso the accounting period or the previous year was split up in cases where it was not the preceding financial year or 1947-48. Thus the calender year 1947 became two chargeable accounting periods of 3 months and 9 months i.e. from January 1, 1947 to march 31, 1947 and April 1, 1947 to December 31, 1947, and the same would apply to accounting period from Diwali to Diwali i.e. 5 months and 7 months. In effect the whole years profits thus became chargeable to Business Profits Tax instead of only of a part of the year as was the case for the financial year 1947-48. Other changes made by the Finance Act of 1948 were in S. 4 were under S. 10 of the Finance Act the rate of tax for the chargeable accounting period upto the end of March 1947 remained at 16 2/3 per cent. but for the chargeable accounting period after the date was to be fixed by the Annual Finance Act and by S. 11 (1) of that Act the rate was fixed at ten per cent. Thus Business Profits Tax rates also were to be fixed by the Annual Finance Act as were the Income-tax rates. Then came the Finance Act of 1949 which continued the Act for another year and under S. 4 fixed the rate chargeable in respect of any chargeable accounting period after March 31, 1948. The Finance Act of 1950 did not continue the Act and it thus came to an end except for liabilities which had already arisen or accrued under the Act.12. As the tax under the Act is charged, levied and paid on the taxable profits of a chargeable accounting period but assessment is in respect of the financial year in which the Act operates it is not an unreasonable inference that notice for the chargeable accounting period must issue in the financial year following that period. No difficulty would arise in regard to accounting periods which coincide with previous years i.e., 1946-47, 1947-48 and 1948-49. For these years the notice will issue in the following chargeable accounting period which again will be the financial year in which the Act would be operative. But the question is how the proviso to S. 2 (4) added by the Finance Act of 1948 would affect this rule. Taking a calendar year 1946 as the accounting period, for the financial year 1947-48 the chargeable accounting period would be the nine months period from April 1, 1946 to December 31, 1946, and notice under S. 11(1) of the Act must issue in the financial year because the tax is leviable and assessment is made for the year beginning April 1, 1947 when the Act came into force and remained operative during the year 1947-48. After the Finance Act of 1948 the accounting year, if it was a calendar year, became divided into two parts and both were assessable in the assessment year beginning with April 1, 1948, and therefore notice had to be given in the financial year 1948-49. Similarly in the financial year 1949-50 notice would have to be given in that year for the preceding chargeable accounting period. In this view of the matter the contention that there is no provision in S. 11(1) of the Act as to the chargeable accounting period as there is for the previous year in S. 22 (2) of the Income-tax Act is not well-founded.13. That the notion of the previous year or the accounting period is as much applicable to the Act as to the Indian Income-tax Act is shown by reference to Computation of Profits Rules in the Schedule to the Act. There the computation is related to the accounting periods. The previous year is shown applicable by reference to the Rules under the Act by which some of the Rules of the Income-tax Act are made applicable to the Act; and some of the sections of that Act are made applicable by S. 19 and by the Rules under the Act. Amongst the Rules applicable is R. 8 which inter alia related to allowances under S. 10(2) (vi) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The first and the second proviso to this rule are as follows:"Provided that if the building, machinery, plant or furniture have been used by the assessee in his business for not less than two months during the previous year, the percentage shall be increased proportionately according to the number of complete months of user by the assessee;Provided further that in the case of a seasonal factory worked by the assessee during all the working seasons of the previous year the percentage shall be increased as if the buildings, machinery, plant, or furniture had been in the use throughout the period the assessee was the owner thereof during the previous year".Both these provisos use the word previous year which is same as the accounting year under the Act.14. By R. 4(A) of the Rules made under the Act certain sections of the Indian Income-tax Act have been adapted with modifications therein mentioned. Of those S. 50 of the Income-tax Act is one. In the Act it has been substituted by the following:"No claim to any refund of tax under the Act shall be allowed unless it is made within four years from the last day of the financial year commencing next after the expiry of the accounting period which constitutes or included the chargeable accounting period in respect of which the claim to such refund arises".All these sections show not only that the two statutes i.e. the Act and the Indian Income-tax Act have to be read together but also that the notion of the previous year has been inducted into the Act.15. The modified S. 50, as introduced into the Act by the rules, means this that the refund, if any, can only be allowed within four years of the financial year which commences after the expiry of the accounting period which itself constitutes the chargeable accounting period or includes in it the chargeable accounting period in respect of which the refund is claimed. If the contention of the appellant is correct then this section will be wholly otiose where the assessment is levied after say 10 years from the end of the chargeable accounting period because by no method of calculation will a refund of tax in that circumstances be claimable under S. 50. This furnishes a key to when a notice under S. 11(1) has to be given. It must be given within the financial year which commences next after the expiry of the accounting period or the previous year which is by itself or includes the chargeable accounting period in question. Section 48 of the Income-tax Act, as amended and applied to the Act, does not affect the operation of S. 50 because the two sections have to be read together and the assessee must apply for the refund within the period specified by S. 50. Adamjee Hajee Dawood and Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Burma, 1936-4 ITR 100: (AIR 1936 Rang 85).16. The language of S. 14 and particularly the words :may proceed to assess or reassess the amount of such profits to Business Profits Tax support the contention of the respondent that it applies to cases of no assessment due to notice not being given as to cases of no assessment after notice was given and proceedings proved ineffective. The words "assess" and "reassess" do not mean the same thing and signify two different cases. The former applies to cases where there was no assessment to tax due to notice not being given and the process has to commence with the issuing of such notice and the latter to cases where the assessment process is recommenced by issuing a second notice, the previous notice having proved abortive or resulting in under-assessment etc.17. Construing in this manner effect is given to the words "profits of any chargeable accounting period......have escaped assessment" and it also avoids the anomaly that some cases where there was no assessment can be dealt with under one section with a time limit as under S. 14 but other equally clear cases of non-assessment are dealt with under S. 11 without there being any limitation of time. If the contention of the appellant is accepted then it would come to this that it would depend upon the Income-tax Officer as to which of the two sections he uses for the purposes of assessment and would lead to this absurdity that in a case of definite information of profits having escaped assessment there will be a limitation of four years and in cases where there is no such information but only belief there will be no such limitation.18. If the words "profits escaping assessment" are applicable to original assessments i.e. where the process of assessment did not commence as also to assessments where the process of assessment was commenced but proved wholly abortive or partially so, then S. 14 would apply to both such cases. Thus construed S. 11 would apply to normal original assessments and S. 14 to profits escaping assessment as construed above whether the assessment is an original assessment or is a re-assessment.19. In determining the scope of S. 14 of the Act reference may be made to another statute which is relevant for the purpose i.e. the Excess Profits Tax Act (Act XV of 1940) Ss. 13 and 15 of which are identical in language with Ss. 11 and 14 of the Act.Section 13 deals with the issue of a notice for assessment and S. 15 with profits escaping assessment. Before the Income Tax and Excess Profits (Amendment) Act, 1947 (Act XXII of 1947) there was a 5 years period of limitation prescribed in S. 15 in the following terms: "within five years of the end of the chargeable accounting period in question". By the aforesaid amendment these words were deleted. The Act, being Act XXI of 1947 as well as the Amendment Act above referred to were enacted about the same time one after the other. The legislature thought it necessary to remove the period of limitation and thereby made profits escaping assessment liable to taxation under the Excess Profits Tax Act without any period of limitation but in the Act the legislature thought it expedient to prescribe the period of limitation of four years in S. 14. It cannot be said that this was without any purpose and the argument that prescribing the period of limitation in S. 14 of the Act was deliberate and was intended to prevent taxing under the Act of profits which had escaped assessment for four years from the end of the chargeable accounting period in question.20. It was argued for the appellant that S. 11(1) construed according to the plain meaning of the words used therein applies to original assessments and S. 14 to assessments in which notice was given but due to any cause whatsoever the proceedings resulted in no assessment or in underassessment. He referred to the words "require any person whom he believes to be engaged in any business.....or to have been engaged during any chargeable accounting period or to be otherwise liable", and submitted that these words mean that if an Income-tax Officer has such belief in regard to a person who is engaged in any business or was engaged in any business during any chargeable accounting period in question he can issue a notice at any time without limitation of time requiring a return to be filed etc. In support counsel for the appellant relied upon two judgments; Gokuldas Ratanji Mandavia v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 1959 AC 114 which was an appeal from East Africa and on Telu Ram Jain and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 1955-27 ITR 94 : (AIR 1955 Punj 58) a case decided by the Punjab High Court. In the former case a notice was issued to the assessee under S. 59 (1) of the East African Income Tax (Management) Act, 1952 which provided:"The Commissioner may, by notice in writing, required any person to furnish him within a reasonable time, not being less than thirty days from the date of service of such notice with a return of income......"Sections 71(1) and 72 provided:"S. 71(1). The Commissioner shall proceed to assess every person chargeable with tax as soon as may be after the expiration of the time allowed to such person for the delivery of his return.......""S. 72. Where it appears to the Commissioner that any person liable to tax has not been assessed.....the Commissioner may......assess such person and such amount......as, according to his judgment, ought to have been charged....."The notice requiring the assessee to furnish returns of his income for the years of assessment 1943-53 was issued but no return was filed and assessment was made under S. 72 of the East African Act for the years 1943-51. The assessee contended that S. 72 did not apply until the machinery under S. 71 had been put into operation and that the assessments were ultra vires and void because they were made before the time allowed by S. 71. It was held that S. 71 applied to all original assessments and S. 72 with reopening of cases which had been settled under a normal procedure. Accepting the contention of the assessee Lord Somervell of Harrow observed:-"If the power to make an assessment under section 72 applies to the making of an original assessment their Lordships are unable to imply a term restricting it to back cases or making it ultra vires to operate it at any time. One would expect an opportunity to make a return to be a condition precedent to assessment. This is supported by the provisions for personal allowances in Part VI of the Act. If respondent is right any person can be assessed without having any such opportunity. There would be two concurrent jurisdictions one providing reasonable protection for the taxpayer and the other providing no protection quoad the original assessment, apart from a right to appeal. Such a construction seems to their Lordships inconsistent with the general and mandatory provisions of S. 71. That section is providing how all original assessments are to be made."The language of these sections 59 (1), 71 and 72 is different from that of Ss. 11 and 14 of the Act. Section 72 was held not applicable because there would be two concurrent jurisdictions one providing reasonable protection for the taxpayer and the other providing no protection which would be contrary to the provisions of S. 71. According to the Privy Council it was necessary to restrict the words of S. 72 to cases in which the machinery of S. 59(1) having been operated no assessment resulted. The words of S. 14 are entirely different. It applies to cases of profits escaping assessment and the words "escaping assessment" have already been interpreted under S. 34 of the Income-tax Act and there is no reason why the same words occurring in a statute which is in pari materia should be given a different meaning in the two Acts. Further the difficulty which the Privy Council felt in regard to there being two jurisdictions, one giving protection to the assessee and the other not giving such protection ,does not exist in the present case because the process of assessment under S. 14 of the Act is exactly the same as it is where notice is given under S. 11(1) of the Act and all the advantages which an assessee would have under S. 11(1) are available to him under S. 14.21. The Punjab case to which our attention has been drawn was a case under the Excess Profits Tax Act and it was held that because of the removal of the limitation clause in S. 15 of that Act assessments were not hit by any period of limitation and a further observation not necessary for the decision of the case was made that even otherwise the language of S. 13 of that Act was wide and there was no substance in the contention that after the assessment period a notice under S. 13 of that Act could not be issued and that the only notice which could be given was one under S. 15.22. In view of the construction we have placed on S. 14 of the Act on the words "profits escaping assessment" that they apply to assessments where notice has been given and has resulted in no assessment and where due to inadvertence, oversight or other circumstances no notice was given, it is difficult to interpret S. 11 in the manner contended for by the appellant.

Decision reasoning: 0[ds]e provisions of the Act which arise for consideration are Ss. 2, 4, 5, 11 and 14. Section 2 is the definition section; S. 4 the charging section and S. 5 deals with the applicability of the Act.These sections lead to the conclusion that every business to which the Act applies is liable to the risk of being assessed to Business Profits Tax and it is well settled that income escapes assessment when the process of assessment has not been initiated as also in a case where it has resulted in no assessment after completion of the process of assessment. In our opinion the High Court was right when it held that Ss. 11 and 14 of the Act have to be read together.All these cases show that the words "escaping assessment" apply equally to cases where a notice was received by the assessee but resulted in no assessment at all and to cases where due to any reason no notice was issued to the assessee and therefore there was no assessment of his income. It is also clear from the language of S. 14 of the Act that when a notice is issued under that section all the requirements of the notice under S. 11 apply and theOfficer has to proceed in the manner as if the notice was issued under S. 11. Therefore any advantage or relief which was available to the assessee under S. 11 as to allowable deductions, deficiency etc. would be equally available, if the notice is issued under. S. 14.As the tax under the Act is charged, levied and paid on the taxable profits of a chargeable accounting period but assessment is in respect of the financial year in which the Act operates it is not an unreasonable inference that notice for the chargeable accounting period must issue in the financial year following that period. No difficulty would arise in regard to accounting periods which coincide with previous years i.e.,9. For these years the notice will issue in the following chargeable accounting period which again will be the financial year in which the Act would be operative. But the question is how the proviso to S. 2 (4) added by the Finance Act of 1948 would affect this rule. Taking a calendar year 1946 as the accounting period, for the financial yearthe chargeable accounting period would be the nine months period from April 1, 1946 to December 31, 1946, and notice under S. 11(1) of the Act must issue in the financial year because the tax is leviable and assessment is made for the year beginning April 1, 1947 when the Act came into force and remained operative during the yearAfter the Finance Act of 1948 the accounting year, if it was a calendar year, became divided into two parts and both were assessable in the assessment year beginning with April 1, 1948, and therefore notice had to be given in the financial yearSimilarly in the financial yearnotice would have to be given in that year for the preceding chargeable accounting period. In this view of the matter the contention that there is no provision in S. 11(1) of the Act as to the chargeable accounting period as there is for the previous year in S. 22 (2) of theThe modified S. 50, as introduced into the Act by the rules, means this that the refund, if any, can only be allowed within four years of the financial year which commences after the expiry of the accounting period which itself constitutes the chargeable accounting period or includes in it the chargeable accounting period in respect of which the refund is claimed. If the contention of the appellant is correct then this section will be wholly otiose where the assessment is levied after say 10 years from the end of the chargeable accounting period because by no method of calculation will a refund of tax in that circumstances be claimable under S. 50. This furnishes a key to when a notice under S. 11(1) has to be given. It must be given within the financial year which commences next after the expiry of the accounting period or the previous year which is by itself or includes the chargeable accounting period in question. Section 48 of theAct, as amended and applied to the Act, does not affect the operation of S. 50 because the two sections have to be read together and the assessee must apply for the refund within the period specified by S.language of these sections 59 (1), 71 and 72 is different from that of Ss. 11 and 14 of the Act. Section 72 was held not applicable because there would be two concurrent jurisdictions one providing reasonable protection for the taxpayer and the other providing no protection which would be contrary to the provisions of S. 71. According to the Privy Council it was necessary to restrict the words of S. 72 to cases in which the machinery of S. 59(1) having been operated no assessment resulted. The words of S. 14 are entirely different. It applies to cases of profits escaping assessment and the words "escaping assessment" have already been interpreted under S. 34 of theAct and there is no reason why the same words occurring in a statute which is in pari materia should be given a different meaning in the two Acts. Further the difficulty which the Privy Council felt in regard to there being two jurisdictions, one giving protection to the assessee and the other not giving such protection ,does not exist in the present case because the process of assessment under S. 14 of the Act is exactly the same as it is where notice is given under S. 11(1) of the Act and all the advantages which an assessee would have under S. 11(1) are available to him under S. 14.21. The Punjab case to which our attention has been drawn was a case under the Excess Profits Tax Act and it was held that because of the removal of the limitation clause in S. 15 of that Act assessments were not hit by any period of limitation and a further observation not necessary for the decision of the case was made that even otherwise the language of S. 13 of that Act was wide and there was no substance in the contention that after the assessment period a notice under S. 13 of that Act could not be issued and that the only notice which could be given was one under S. 15.22. In view of the construction we have placed on S. 14 of the Act on the words "profits escaping assessment" that they apply to assessments where notice has been given and has resulted in no assessment and where due to inadvertence, oversight or other circumstances no notice was given, it is difficult to interpret S. 11 in the manner contended for by the appellant.