Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 281 of 1955. Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 18	 1954	 of the Bombay High Court in Income tax Reference No. 35 of 1953. K. N. Rajagopal Sastri and D. Gupta	 for the appellant. R. J. Kolah and Ram Ditta Mal	 for the respondent. May 8. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH J. This appeal on a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay has been filed by the Commissioner of Income tax	 Bombay against Ranchhoddas Karsondas of Bombay (hereinafter referred to	 as the assessee) under section 66A of the Indian Income tax Act. The facts leading tip to this appeal are as follows For the assessment year 1945 46	 a public notice under section 22(1) of the Income tax Act (hereinafter called the Act) was issued	 requiring every person whose total income during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which was not chargeable to income tax to furnish	 within such period not being less than sixty days as might be specified in the notice	 a return of his income in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner. This notice was published on or about May 1	 1945. The assessee did not make a return of his income. The Income tax Officer	 while examining the books of account of a partnership called the " Assar Syndicate " of which the assessee was a partner	 found that in the account year corresponding to the assessment year 1945 46	 there were six cash credits aggregating to Rs. 59	026 in the name of the assessee 's wife. Before	 however	 the Income tax 116 Officer could take any action	 the assessee submitted a " voluntary " return on January 5	 1950 of his income for the accounting year 1944 45 (assessment year 1945 46) showing a total net income of Rs. 1	935. He added a footnote to the return to the following effect: " My wife has sold her old ornaments and deposited the sum of Rs. 59	026 in the firm of Assar Syndicate in which I am a partner." The Income tax Officer did not act on this return	 but on February 27	 1950 he issued a notice purporting to be under section 34 of the Act calling upon the assessee to submit his return. This notice was served on the assessee on March 3	1950	 and in answer thereto	 the assessee submitted a similar return on March 14	 1950 showing the same income and adding the same footnote. The Income tax Officer then issued and served upon the assessee notices under sections 22(4) and 23(2) of the Act asking him to produce his books of account and to tender any evidence he cared to lead. It appears from the record that these notices were complied with	 but on February 26	 1951 the Income tax Officer included the sum of Rs. 59	026 in the total income of the assessee and assessed him on it for the assessment year 1945 46. The assessee appealed	 in turn	 to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income tax Appellate Tribunal. His contentions were three	 viz.	 that the amount of Rs. 59	026 could not and should not have been included in his income	 that the amended section 34 of the Act had no retrospective effect	 and that the assessment completed on February 26	 1951 was invalid	 inasmuch as it was completed four years after. the end of the relevant assessment year. Both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal rejected his contentions	 but the Tribunal on being moved by him	 raised and referred two questions of law under section 66(1) of the Act to the High Court of Judicature	 Bombay	 for its decision. These questions were: " (1) Whether the notice issued under Section 34 of the Act by the Income tax Officer on 27 2 1950	 117 after the assessee had filed a voluntary return was valid in law? (2) Whether the assessment made on 26 2 1951 is valid in law? This reference was heard by the High Court on March 18	 1954	 and by a judgment delivered on the same day	 Chagla	 C.J.	 and Tendolkar	 J.	 answered ' both the questions in the negative. Before the High Court	 it was again contended by the assessee that since he had submitted a return under section 22(3) of the Act on January 5	 1950	 the assessment	 if any	 had to be completed before March 31	 1950	 as required by section 34(3) of the Act. He also contended that he was entitled under section 22(3) to make a " voluntary " return on the date he did	 and with a voluntary return before the Income tax Officer	 there was no scope for the issuance of a notice under section 34. The High Court upheld the contentions of the assessee	 and gave its opinion that the Department ought to have issued a notice under section 22(2) within the assessment year	 and if no return was made within the time fixed by the notice	 the Department should have proceeded under section 23(4) to a 'best judgment ' assessment. The other alternative for the Department was to issue a notice under section 34 of the Act	 if the period for sending a notice under section 22(2) had expired. But it could not issue a notice under section 34 after a return was already made before it	 and the benefit of the extended period of limitation for assessment available under the first proviso to sub section (3) of section 34 of one year from the service of the notice under sub section (1) of that section was not available in this case. The High Court granted a certificate of fitness	 and hence this appeal. The arguments which were urged before the High Court were all raised in this Court by the parties. The case of the Department was supplemented by an argument that	 inasmuch as the assessee had suppressed his income or given incorrect particulars thereof	 the period during which action under section 34 could be taken was the extended one of 8 years. In the arguments before us	 our attention was drawn to a cleavage of opinion between the Bombay High 118 Court on the one hand and the Calcutta High Court on the other. While the Bombay High Court seems to be of the view that a " voluntary " return showing a nontaxable income is still a good return for all purposes under the Act	 the Calcutta High Court is of the view that what section 22(1) of the Act requires is a return of taxable income and not a return of income	 which shows a loss or is below the taxable limit. It appears that at one time the Calcutta High Court also entertained the view that such a return was no return at all	 but it was explained later that this meant that the return was ineffective for the purposes of section 22(1) of the Act	 though it might be a " return " being in the prescribed form. The Bombay High Court also entertains the view that the assessment proceedings commence with the issue of a public notice	 and that section 34 of the Act cannot apply	 where in answer to the public notice a return is made whether of taxable income or not. The view of the Calcutta High Court is that assessment proceedings commence either with a notice under section 22(2) of the Act or with the filing of a return showing taxable income. We are not here concerned with the quantum but only with the legality of the assessment. The side issue whether	 in point of fact	 the cash credits in the name of the wife	 represented the income (if the husband does not survive for decision. Thus	 the only question is whether the notice issued under section 34 of the Act on February 27	 1950 (after the assessee filed his " voluntary " return on January 5	 1950) and the assessment thereon	 were valid in law. Section 34(3) of the Act provides that no assessment except the assessment within el. (a) of sub section (1) thereof or under section 23 to which el. (c) of sub section (1) of section 28 applies	 shall be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the year in which income	 profits or gains were first assessable. A proviso	 however	 allows one year from the date of the service of the notice for the completion of the assessment. It reads	 omitting matters not relevant here: " . where a notice under sub section (1) has been issued within the time therein limited	 the assessment or reassessment to be made in pursuance of such 119 notice may be made before the expiry of one year from the date of the service of the notice even if such period exceeds the period of . four years . " It is	 therefore	 quite clear that the extra period is available only if a notice under sub section (1) of section 34 has been issued within the time therein limited. This takes us to section 34(1). Section 34(1)	 omitting parts not relevant	 reads: " (1)If . . . . . . . (a) the Income tax Officer has reason to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return of his income under section 22	 for any year. I or (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	 profits or gains chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment for any year . he may in cases falling under clause (a) at any time within eight years and in cases falliny under clause (b) at any time within four years of the end of that year	 serve on the assessee. a notice . and may proceed to assess such income. " It would appear from this that if the return filed on January 5	 1950	 was a return of income	 there was no failure or omission on the part of the assessee	 so as to bring the matter within section 34(1)(a) of the Act	 and subs. (3) of section 34 would then apply to the case limiting the period to four years. In that event	 the assessment should have been completed on or before March 31	 1950. But if the return made by the assessee was no return at all	 then the conditions under the first subsection of section 34 obtained	 and the assessment could be completed within one year of the date of service of the notice (March 3	 1950)	 i.e. on or before March 2	 1951. In that event	 the assessment would be valid. The validity of the return in this context is tied to the validity of the notice and also vice versa. 120 Section 22 of the Act (omitting the parts not relevant) may now be quoted: " (1) The Income tax Officer shall	 on or before the 1st day of May	 in each year	 give notice	 by publication in the press. 	 requiring every person whose total income during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income tax to furnish	 within such period not being less than sixty days. a return. setting forth. his total income and total world income during that year: (2) In the case of any person whose total income is	 in the Income tax Officer 's opinion	 of such an amount as to render such person liable to income tax	 the Income tax Officer may serve a notice upon him requiring him to furnish	 within such period	 not being less than thirty days. a return . setting forth . his total income and total world income during the previous year: (3) If any person has not furnished a return within the time allowed by or under sub section (1) or sub section (2)	 or having furnished a return under either of those sub sections	 discovers any omission or wrong statement therein	 he may furnish a return or a revised return	 as the case may be at any time before the assessment is made. " It will be seen from this	 that	 as the Bombay High Court correctly pointed out	 there is a time limit provided in sub sections (1) and (2) and the failure or omission occurs when that period passes	 but sub s (3) allows a locus poenitentiae before the assessment is actually made. There is no dispute that a return could be filed in this case	 late though it was. The controversy centres round the fact that the return	 when it was filed	 disclosed an income which was below the maximum not chargeable to tax	 and the question is whether in such an event the Income tax Officer was precluded from issuing a notice under section 34 of the Act. There has been in the past a well marked difference of opinion between the Bombay and the Calcutta High 121 Courts	 the leading cases in Bombay being Harakchand Makanji & Co. vs Commissioner of Income tax (1)	 All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income tax(2) and the decision under appeal here	 while the Calcutta view is to be found in Commissioner of Agricultural Income tax vs Sultan Ali Gharami (3)	 R. K. Das & Co. vs Commissioner of Income tax (4) and Commissioner of Income tax vs Govindlal Dutta (5). To these may be added P. section Rama Iyer vs Commissioner of Income tax (6)	 in which the Madras High Court has accepted the Bombay view. No useful purpose will be served in discussing these cases in detail. In some of them	 the point need not have been taken up for decision	 though it was. We shall refer very briefly to the two rival views and the grounds on which they are rested	 and in doing so	 we begin with the Calcutta decisions. In Sultan Ali Gharami 's case (3)	 a notice under section 24(1) of the Bengal Agricultural Income tax Act (corresponding to section 22(1) of the Act) was issued. No return was filed. Three years later	 a notice under section 24(2) of that Act (corresponding to section 22(2) of the Act) was served	 and a return showing an income below the taxable minimum was filed. The contention was that without a notice under section 24(2) within the assessment year or a notice under section 38(1) (corresponding to section 34 (1) of the Act) the best judgment ' assessment was bad. The contention further was that the return could be taken to be under section 24(1) or section 24(3). Chakravarti	 J. (as he then was) and Das Gupta	 J.	 held that a person who had no assessable income was not placed under a duty to file a return	 that the return whether filed under section 24(1) or section 24(3) which had failed to show an assessable income could not possibly be 'treated ' as a return under section 24(1) or even section 24(3)when filed in answer to a notice under section 24(2). They further observed at p. 442: " A return under section on 24(1) is a return filed by a person who decides for himself that he had an assessable income in the previous year and by filing (1) (1948) 16 	 (4) (1056) (2) (1954) 25 1. T. R. R (5) (1957) 33 ; (3) 16 122 the return he offers that income for assessment. A person who had no assessable income in the previous year is placed under no duty by a notice under section 24(1) to furnish a return and a person who thinks	 rightly or wrongly	 that he had no assessable income will furnish none. A return under section 24(1)	 whether filed within the time allowed under the section or filed subsequently under the provisions of section 24(3)	 will therefore show an assessable income. A return which showed no assessable income	 could not possibly be 'treated ' as a return filed under section 24(1) or a return called for under that section but filed under section 24(3)	 when in fact it was filed in response to a notice under section 24(2). " The opinion here expressed was criticised in the judgment under appeal	 and in the next case	 R. K. Das & Co vs Commissioner of Income tax(1)	 the Calcutta High Court (Chakravarti	 C.J.	 and Sarkar	 J.) explained what was really meant. It is not necessary to refer to the facts of that case. This is what Chakravarti	 C.J.	 observed at p. 449: " It should be remembered '	 I observed 'that the return in the present case is being sought to be treated as a return under section 24(1)	 belatedly filed. ' And then I went on to say that a return under section 24(1) would only be filed by a person who thought that he had a taxable income and therefore a return showing an income below the taxable limit could not be held	 on a construction thereof	 to be a return under section 24(1) and consequently the return in the case we were then considering could not be treated as such a return filed under section 24(3). To say that	 was not to say that even a return filed in	 compliance with a notice under section 22(2)	 if filed belatedly under section 22(3) could not be a return showing an income below the taxable limit. " This left the matter somewhat ambiguous as to what was really meant	 and in Commissioner of Income tax vs Govindlal Dutta(2)	Chakravarti	 C. J.	 and Guha	 J.	 (1) (2) 123 again explained the true import of the law laid down. They referred to section 22(1) of the Act as it stood prior to the amendment of 1953	 and observed that under that section a person was required to file a return only if his total income during the preceding year exceeded the maximum amount which was not chargeable to tax. The return contemplated was thus only a return of income and not a return of loss and not even a return of income	 but a return of taxable income. Not only had a person no duty but he had even no right to file a return voluntarily	 if he had suffered a loss	 to 'report ' that loss. The learned Judges concluded that it was a complete mistake to think that section 22(3) provided for the filing of a voluntary return showing loss	 at any time	 before assessment. That section	 they opined	 contemplated the filing of a return of taxable income	 and a return not showing such income was not a return at all in law. The Calcutta view	 as shown above	 really proceeds upon the wording of section 22(1). It lays down that the public notice requires only persons having an income above the taxable limit to make a return. A person who has no such income need not make a return	 and if he does make a return	 it is not a return which need be considered	 being not a return in law. It is a little difficult to understand how the existence of a return can be ignored	 once it has been filed. A return showing income below the taxable limit can be made even in answer to a notice under section 22(2). The notice under section 22(1) requires in a general way what a notice under section 22(2) requires of an individual. If a return of income below the taxable limit is a good return in answer to a notice under section 22(2)	 there is no reason to think that a return of a similar kind in answer to a public notice is no return at all. The conclusion does not follow from the words of section 22(1). No doubt	 under that sub section only those persons are required to make a return	 whose income is above taxable limits	 but a person may legitimately consider himself entitled to certain deductions and allowances	 and yet file a return to be on the safe side. He may show his income and the 124 deductions and allowances he claims. But it may be that on a correct processing his income may be found to be above the exempted limit. No doubt	 it is futile for a person not liable to tax to rush in with a return	 but the return in law is not a mere scrap of paper. It is a return	 such as the assessee considers	 represents his true income. We are unable (and we say this with due respect) to accept the view adumbrated in the Calcutta cases. The contrary view is expressed by the Bombay High Court in the earlier case of Harakchand Makanji & Co. vs Commissioner of Income tax (1) and in the judgment under appeal. That view was accepted by the Madras High Court in P. section Rama Iyer vs Commissioner of Income tax (2) and also	 in our opinion	 is the sounder view of the two. In the earlier of the two Bombay cases	 Chagla	 C. J.	 and Tendolkar	 J.	 held (as stated in the head note): " Notice under section 34 is only necessary if at the end of the assessment year no return has been made by the assessee	 and the authorities wished to proceed under section 22(2)	 but where the assessee himself chooses voluntarily to make a return	 no question can arise under section 34 of assessment escaping	 and therefore there is no necessity to serve any notice under section 34. " This represents the law applicable to the facts as they are to be found in this case. In the assessment year no return of income was filed	 nor was any notice served under section 22(2). There was	 however	 the general notice under section 22(1). A return in answer to that notice could be filed under section 22(3) before assessment	 and for this there is no limit of time. It was filed on January 5	 1950. There was nothing to prevent the Income tax Officer from taking up the return and proceeding to assess the income of the assessee. It was open to him	 if there was sufficient justification for it	 to hold that the amount noted in the footnote was really the assessee 's income	 in which case an assessable income would have been found and the tax could be charged thereon. If the Income tax Officer had acted on that return and assessed the assessee (1) (2) 125 before March 31	 1950	 the assessment would have been valid. He chose to ignore the return	 and served on the assessee a notice under section 34(1). This notice was improper	 because with the return already filed there was neither an omission nor a failure on the part of the assessee	 nor was there any question of assessment 'escaping '. The notice under section 34(1) was	 therefore	 invalid and the consequent assessment equally so. We accordingly agree with the judgment under appeal. Before leaving this case	 we may refer to two other arguments	 which were raised. Mr. Rajagopala Sastri pointed out that an assessee might file the 'voluntary ' return on the last day showing income less than the taxable limit	 and the Department would	 in that case	 be driven to complete the assessment proceedings within a few hours or lose the right to send a notice under section 34(1). An argument ab inconvenienti is not a decisive argument. The Income tax Officer could have avoided the result by issuing a notice under section 23(2) and not remaining inactive until the period was about to expire. Further	 all laws of limitation lead to some inconvenience and hard cases. The remedy is for the legislature to amend the law suitably. The Courts can administer the laws as they find them	 and they are seldom required to be astute to defeat the law of limitation. This argument is thus no answer to the clear meaning and implications of the Act. The other argument was that the return was not a true one	 and fell within the mischief of cl. (c) of sub s.(1) of section 28	 and that	 therefore	 the period during which action could be taken was the extended one of 8 years. The short answer to that is that this was not a part of the Department 's case at any prior stage	 and cannot be allowed to be raised now. In our opinion	 the answers given by the High Court of Bombay were correct in all the circumstances of this case. The appeal thus fails	 and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.

A public notice under section 22(1) of the Income tax Act	 1922 was published on May 1	 1045	 requiring every person whose total income exceeded the maximum amount which was not chargeable to income tax to file returns for the assessment year 1945 46. On January 5	 1950	 the assessee submitted a voluntary return showing an income of Rs. 1	935 for the assessment year 1945 46 and added a footnote to the return that his wife had sold her old ornaments and deposited a sum of Rs. 59	026 with the Assar Syndicate in which he was a partner. The Income tax Officer	 who had discovered these credits while examining the accounts of the Assar Syndicate	 ignored the voluntary return	 and	 on February 27	 1950	 issued a notice under section 34(1) of the Act calling upon the assessee to submit his return. On March 14	 1950	 the assessee submitted an identical return. The Income tax Officer made the assessment on February 26	 1951	 and included the sum of Rs. 59	026 in the total income of the assessee. The assessee contended that the assessment was invalid as it was completed more than four years after the end of the assessment year in violation Of section 34(1)(b). The appellant contended that the voluntary return was no return as it did not disclose any taxable income and the assessment was valid under the proviso to section 34(3) Of the Act	 having been made within one year of the notice issued under section 34(1). Held	 that the assessment was invalid. The voluntary return filed by the assessee	 even though it did riot disclose any taxable income	 was a good return and could not be ignored. As such no question arose under section 34(1) of income escaping assessment and the Income tax Officer was not justified in issuing the notice under section 34(1). The proviso to section 34(3) was applicable only when there was a Proper notice issued under section 34(1) and the appellant could not take advantage of the time allowed by this proviso. The assessment was clearly made beyond four years of the end of the assessment year 1945 46 and was time barred. Harakchand Makanji & Co. vs Commissioner of Income tax	 All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd. vs 115 Commissioner of Income tax	 (1953) 25 I.T.R. go and P. section Rama Iyer vs Commissioner of Income tax	 (1957) 33 I.T.R. 458	 approved. Commissioner of Agricultural Income tax vs Sultan Ali Gharami ; B. K. Das & Co. vs Commissioner of Income tax	 and Commissioner of Income tax vs Govindlal Dutta (1957) 33 ; 	 disapproved.