Judgment Case ID: 1029

Judgment:
Appeal No. 650 of 1957. Appeal from the judgment dated July 13	 1956	 of the Patna High Court in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 665 of 1954. R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar	 for the appellant. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and R. C. Prasad	 for the respondent. November 29. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH	 J. This is an appeal by the Commissioner of Income tax with a certificate against the judgment and order of the High Court at Patna answering two questions of law referred to it under section 66(1) of the Income tax Act by the Tribunal	 in the negative. Those questions were: "(1) Whether in the circumstances of the case assessment proceedings were validly initiated under section 34 of the Indian Income tax Act? (2) If so	 whether in the circumstances of the case the amount received from interest on arrears of agricultural rent was rightly included in the income of the assessee ?" The assessee	 the Maharaja Pratapsingh Bahadur of Gidhaur	 had agricultural income from his zamindari for the four assessment years 1944 45 to 1947 48. In assessing his income to income tax	 the authorities did not include in his assessable income interest received by him on arrears of rent. This was presumably so in view of the decision of the Patna High Court. When the Privy Council reversed the view of law taken by the Patna High Court in Commissioner of Income tax vs Kamakhya Narayan Singh (1)	 the Income tax Officer issued notices under section 34 of the (1) 762 Indian Income tax Act for assessing the escaped income. These notices were issued on August 8	 1948. The assessments after the returns were filed	 were completed on August 26	 1948. Before the notices were issued	 the Income tax Officer had not put the matter before the Commissioner for his approval	 as the section then did not require it	 and the assessments were completed on those notices. Section 34 was amended by the Income tax and Business Profits Tax (Amendment) Act	 1948 (No. 48 of 1948)	 which received the assent of the Governor General on Sep tember 8	 1948. The appeals filed by the assessee were disposed of on September 14 and 15	 1951	 by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner	 before whom no question as regards the validity of the notices under section 34 was raised. The question of the validity of the notices without the approval of the Commissioner appears to have been raised before the Tribunal for the first time. In that appeal	 the Accountant Member and the Judicial Member differed	 one holding that the notices were invalid and the other	 to the contrary. The President agreed with the Accountant 'Member that the notices were invalid	 and the assessments were ordered to be set aside. The Tribunal then stated a case and raised and referred the two questions	 which have been quoted above. The High Court agreed with the conclusions of the majority	 and the present appeal has been filed on a certificate granted by the High Court. Section 34	 as it stood prior to the amendment Act No. 48 of 1948	 did not lay any duty upon the Income tax Officer to seek the approval of the Commissioner before issuing a notice under section 34. The amending Act by its first section made sections 3 to 12 of the amending Act retrospective by providing "sections 3 to 12 shall be deemed to have come into force on the 30th day of March	 1948. . Section 8 of the amending Act substituted a new section in place of section 34	 and in addition to textual changes with which we are not concerned	 also added a proviso to the following effect : "Provided that 763 (1) the Income tax Officer shall not issue a notice under this sub section unless he has recorded his reasons for doing so and the Commissioner is satisfied on such reasons that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. " The question is whether the notices which were issued were rendered void by the operation of this proviso. ' The Commissioner contends that section 6 of the 	 particularly cls. (b) and (c) saved the assessments as well as the notices. He relies upon a decision of the Privy Council in Lemm vs Mitchell (1)	 Eyre vs Wynn Mackenzie (2) and Butcher vs Henderson (3) in support of his proposition. The last two cases have no bearing upon this matter; but strong reliance is placed upon the Privy Council case. In that case	 the earlier	 action which had been commenced when the Ordinance had abrogated the right of action for criminal conversation	 had already ended in favour of the defendant and no appeal therefrom was pending	 and it was held that the revival of the right of action for criminal conversation did not invest the plaintiff with a right to begin an action again and thus expose the defendant to a double jeopardy for the same act	 unless the statute expressly and by definite words gave him that right. The Privy Council case is thus entirely different. No doubt	 under section 6 of the it is provided that where any Act repeals any enactment	 then unless a different intention appears	 the repeal shall not affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done thereunder or affect any right	 obligation or liability acquired	 accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed. It further provides that any legal proceedings may be continued or enforced as if the repealing Act had not been passed. Now	 if the amending Act had repealed the original section 34	 and merely enacted a new section in its place	 the repeal might not have affected the operation of the original section by virtue of section 6. But the amending Act goes further than this. It (1) ; (2) (3) 764 repeals the original section 34	 not from the day on which the Act received the assent of the Governor General but from a stated day	 viz.	 March 30	 1948	 and substitutes in its place another section containing the proviso above mentioned. The amending Act provides that the amending section shall be deemed to have come into force on March 30	 1948	 and thus by this retrospectivity	 indicates a different intention which excludes the application of section 6. It is to be noticed that the notices were all issued on August 8	 1948	 when on the statute book must be deemed to be existing an enactment enjoining a duty upon the Income tax Officer to obtain prior approval of the Commissioner	 and unless that approval was obstained	 the notices could not be issued The notice were thus invalid. 	 The principle which was applied by this Court in Venkatachalam vs Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1) is equally applicable here. No question of law was raised before us	 as it could not be in view of the decision of this Court in Narayana Chetty vs Income tax Officer (2)	 that the proviso was not mandatory in character. Indeed	 there was time enough for fresh notices to have been issued	 and we fail to see why the old notices were not recalled and fresh ones issued. For these reasons	 we are in agreement with the High	 Court in the answers given	 and dismiss this appeal with costs. A appeal dismissed.

Summary:
The appellant who had agricultural income from his Zamindari was assessed to income tax for the four assessment years	 1944 45	 to 1947 48. The income tax authorities did not include in his assessable income	 interest received by him on arrears of rent	 in view of a decision of the Patna High Court	 but subsequently this view of law was reversed by the Privy Council. On August 8	 1948	 the Income tax Officer issued notices under section 34of the Indian Income tax Act	 1922	 for assessing the escaped income. Before the notices were issued the Income tax Officer had not put the matter before the Commissioner for his approval as the section then did not require it and the assessments were completed on those notices. In the meantime	 certain amendments were made to the Indian Income tax Act by Act 48 of 1948	 which received the assent of the Governor General on September 8	 1948. The Amending Act substituted a new section in place of section 34	 which among other changes	 added a proviso to the effect that "the Income tax Officer shall not issue a notice. unless he has recorded his reasons for doing so and the Commissioner is satisfied on such reasons that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice"	 and also made it retrospective by providing that the new section "shall be deemed to have come into force on the 30th day of March	 1948". The question was whether the notices issued by the Income tax Officer on August 8	 1948	 without the approval of the Commissioner	 were rendered void by reason of the operation of the amended section 34. The Commissioner claimed that section 6 of the 	 saved the assessments as well as the notices. Held	 that section 6 of the 	 was in applicable as the Amending Act of 1948 indicated a different intention within the meaning of that section	 inasmuch as the amended section 34 of the Indian Income tax Act	 1922	 provided that it shall be deemed to have come into force on March 30	 1948. Lemm vs Mitchell	 ; 	 distinguished	 761 Held	 further	 that the notices issued by the Income tax Officer on August 8	 1948	 and the assessments based on them were invalid. Venkatachalam vs Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co.	 Ltd.	 ; 	 applied.