Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 408 of 1957. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 28th September	 1955	 of the former Bombay High Court in Income tax Reference No. 5 of 1955. Sanat P. Mehta	 section N. Andley	 J. B. Dadachanji	 Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra	 for the appellant. A. N. Kripal	 R. H. Dhebar and D. Gupta	 for the respondent. October 18. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH J. To the appellant who was a non resident for the purposes of the Indian Income Tax Act	 1922	 had accrued in the assessment years 1943 44	 194445	 1946 47 and 1947 48 certain dividend income within the taxable territory of British India	 but the appellant did not submit returns of his income for those assessment years. In exercise of his powers under section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act	 1922	 the Income Tax Officer	 Bombay City	 served upon the appellant notices under section 34 read with s	 22(2) of the Act for assessment of tax in respect of those years. The notice for the year 1943 44 was served on the appellant on March 27	 1952	 for the year 1944 45 on February 16	 1953	 for the year 1946 47 on April 4	 1951 and for the year 1947 48 on April 2	 1952. The Income Tax Officer completed the assessments in respect of the years 1943 44	 1944 45 and 1947 48 on May 6	 1953 and for the year 1946 47 on March 19	 1952. The orders of assessment were confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. At the instance of 37 the appellant	 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal drew up a statement of the case under section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act and submitted to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay the following two questions: (I). Whether the notices issued under section 22(2) of the Act read with section 34 of the Act for the assessment years 1943 44	 1944 45	 1946 47 and 1947 48 were served after the period of limitation prescribed by section 34 of the Act? (2) If the answer to Question No. 1 is in the affirmative	 whether the assessments for the years in question were invalid in law? The High Court answered the first question in the negative and observed that on that answer	 the second question " did not arise ". With special leave under article 136 of the Constitution	 this appeal is preferred by the appellant against the order of the High Court. The only question which falls to be determined in this appeal is whether the proceedings for assessment were commenced within the period of limitation prescribed for serving notice of assessment under section 34(1)(a) of the Act. At the material time	 by section 34 (1)(a)	 the Income Tax Officer was invested with power amongst others to serve at any time within eight years from the end of any year of assessment notice of assessment if he had reason to believe that income	 profits or gains had escaped assessment by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return of his income under section 22 for that year	 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment of that year. In those cases where the Income Tax Officer had in consequence of information in his possession reason to believe that income	 profits or gains had escaped assessment even though there was no omission or failure as mentioned in el. (a)	 he could under cl. (b) within four years from the end of the year of assessment serve a notice of assessment. Admittedly	 the notices issued by the Income Tax Officer for the years in question were issued within eight years from the end of the years of assessment and if el. (1)(a) of section 34 applied	 the assessment was not barred by the law of limitation. 38 But the appellant contended that the notices for assessment were	 even though he had not made a return of his income for the years in question	 governed not by cl. (1)(a) of section 34	 but by cl. (1)(b) of section 34. He contended that being a resident outside the taxable territory in the years of 	 assessment	 a general notice under section 22(1) did not give rise to a liability to submit a return	 and his inaction did not amount to omission or failure to submit a return	 inviting the applicability of section 34(1)(a). He submitted that omission or failure to make a return can only arise qua a non resident	 if no return is filed after service of an individual notice under section 22(2). In other words	 the plea is that a notice under section 22(1) imposes an obligation upon persons resident within the taxable territory and not upon non residents	 and support for this argument is sought to be obtained from section 1 sub section (2) which extended the Income Tax Act at the material time to British India. The expression " every person whose total income during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income tax " in section 22(1) includes all persons who are liable to pay tax and there is nothing in the section or in its context which exempts non residents from liability to submit a return pursuant to a notice thereunder. The fact that a non resident assessee may not come to know of the general notice issued under section 22(1) is not a ground for not giving effect to the plain words used in the section. In terms	 the clause read with r. 18 requires every person who has taxable income to submit his return	 and if he fails to do so	 under section 34 of the Act the Income Tax Officer may commence proceedings for assessment within the period prescribed by cl. (1)(a). Section 34(1)(b) applies only to those cases where there is no omission or failure to make a return of the income or to make a full and true disclosure of facts material to the assessment. To the appellant though non resident income bad admittedly accrued in the taxable territory and that income exceeded the maximum amount not chargeable to income tax. 	 The appellant not having submitted a return in pursuance of the notice issued under section 221 the Income Tax 39 Officer was competent under section 34(1)(a) to issue notice at any time within eight years of the end of the year of assessment for assessing him to tax. Once a notice is given by publication in the press and in the prescribed manner under section 22(1)	 every person whose Th. income exceeds the maximum amount exempt from tax is obliged to submit a return and if he does not do so	 it will be deemed that there was omission on his part to a make a return within the meaning of section 34(1)(a). There is no warrant for the submission that section 22(1) applies to residents only and that an obligation to make a return on the part of a nonresident can only arise if a notice under sub section (2) is served. Under sub section (2) it is open to the Income Tax Officer to serve a special notice upon any person requiring him to furnish a return in the prescribed form	 but that provision does not derogate from the liability arising under sub section (1) to submit a return. The Income Tax Act extends by section 1(2) to the taxable territory and not beyond; but within that territory	 the Income Tax Officer has power to tax income which accrues	 arises or is received	 and that is not disputed by the appellant. If power to tax be granted	 it is difficult to appreciate the ground on which the plea that the general provision imposing liability upon persons receiving taxable income is subject to an unexpressed limitation that it is to apply only to residents and not to non residents. The submission that a person liable to pay tax but resident outside the taxable territory must be served with a special notice under section 22(2) before his inaction in the matter of making a return may be deemed omission within the meaning of section 34(1) is without force. There is no such express provision made by the statute and none can be implied from the context. The High Court was therefore right in holding that the proceedings for assessment were properly commenced within the period of limitation prescribed by section 34(1)(a) from the close of the year of assessment. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.

The appellant	 a non resident for the purposes of the Indian Income tax Act	 did not submit returns of certain dividend income accruing to him within the taxable territory. The Income tax Officer served upon him notices under section 34 read with section 22(2) of the Act for assessment of tax in respect of those years. The notices in question were issued within eight years from the end of the years of assessment and were within the period prescribed by section 34(i)(a). The appellant contended that notices for assessment were governed by cl. (i)(b) of section 34 and not by cl. (i)(a)	 even though the appellant had not made a return of his income for the years in question as a general notice under section 22(1) did not give rise to a liability to submit a return and his inaction did not amount to omission or failure to submit a return as he was a non resident	 and the assessment proceedings were barred by limitation. Held	 that the expression "every person " in section 22 (1) of the Indian Income tax Act	 1922	 includes all persons who are liable to pay tax and non residents are not exempted from liability to submit a return pursuant to the general notice thereunder. Once a notice is given by publication in the prescribed manner under section 22(i)	 every person whether resident or non resident whose income exceeds the maximum amount exempt from tax is obliged to submit a return and if he does not do so	 36 it will be deemed that there was omission on his part to make a return within the meaning of section 34(i)(a) of the Indian Income tax Act. Section 34(1)(b) applied only to those cases where there was no omission or failure to make a return of the income or to make a full and true disclosure of facts material to the assessment. In the instant case the proceedings for assessment were pro perly commenced within the period of limitation prescribed by section 34(1)(a).