http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: K.  N. GURUSWAMY

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/04/1958

BENCH: DAS, S.K. BENCH: DAS, S.K. BOSE, VIVIAN DAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ) AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA SARKAR, A.K.

CITATION:  1958 AIR  808            1959 SCR  785

ACT:        Income  Tax-Re-assessment-Taxable Area in Mysore within  the        jurisdiction  of Governor-General in Council, retroceded  in        1947  Constitutional changes resulting in Mysore becoming  a        Part  B State -Financial agreement between the President  of        India  and  the Raj-Pramukh--Income-tax  law  applicable  to        Retroceded  Area  before  and  after  the   Retrocession-Re-        assessment     Proceedings    for    period     Prior     to        1949--Validity-Mysore  Income-tax  Act, 1923  (Mysore  V  of        1923),s.  34      Mysore Income-tax and Excess  Profits  Tax        (Application  to the Retroceded Area) (Emergency) Act,  1948        (Mysore XXXI of        786        1948), ss. 3, 5 (b), 6-Retroceded Area (Application of Laws)        Act, 1948 (Mysore LVII Of 1948), ss. 3, 4-Finance Act,  1950        (XXV Of 1950), s. 13 (1)--Indian lncome-tax Act, 1922 (XI Of        1922), s  . 34.

HEADNOTE: The  respondent was carrying on business as an  excise  con- tractor  in the Civil and Military Station of  Bangalore  in the  State  of  Mysore, called  the  retroceded  area.   The jurisdiction’ over this area was originally exercised by the Governor-General  in Council by virtue of an agreement  with the  Maharaja of Mysore, and the income-tax  law  applicable was the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.  On July 26, 1947,  the retroceded  area was given back to the State of  Mysore  but the income-tax law in force in that area prior to that  date continued  to  have effect and be operative  till  June  30, 1948,  on which date was promulgated the  Mysore  Income-tax Act  and Excess Profits Tax (Application to  the  Retroceded Area)  (Emergency) Act, 1948, the effect of which  was  that the  Indian  Income-tax Act, 1922, stood  repealed  and  the Mysore  Income-tax  Act, 1923, came into  force  subject  to certain   saving  provisions.   On  August  5,   1948,   was promulgated  the Retroceded Area (Application of Laws)  Act, 1948.   Between  1947  and 1950  there  were  political  and constitutional  changes which ultimately resulted in  Mysore becoming  a Part B State within the Constitution  of  India.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

The  legal effect of these changes was that  the  income-tax law  applicable to the retroceded area till June  30,  1948, was the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ; from July 1, 1948, the Mysore  Income-tax Act, 1923, became applicable except  that the  Indian Income-tax Act continued to apply in respect  of the total income chargeable to income-tax in the  retroceded area  prior to July 1, 1948, and the provisions of that  Act as  in  force  in the retroceded area  prior  to  that  date applied  to  all proceedings relating to the  assessment  of such  income upto the stage of assessment and  determination of income-tax payable thereon.  This position continued till April  1, 1950, when the Finance Act, 1950, came into  force and  as  a result the Indian Income-tax  Act,  1922,  became applicable  again  to the retroceded area,  subject  to  the saving provisions of s. 13(1) of the former Act.  In respect of the assessment for the four years between 1945 and  1949, the respondent was assessed to income-tax under the law then in force in that area; subsequently, in 1954 the  Income-tax Officer served a notice on the respondent under s. 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the purpose of assessing  " escaped " or " under-assessed " income chargeable to income- tax  for  the  said years.  The  respondent  challenged  the jurisdiction  of the Income-tax Officer to take  proceedings under  S.  34 or to make an order of  re-assessment  on  the grounds  inter alia (1) that s. 34 Of the Indian  Income-tax Act,  1922,  was not saved by s. 13(1) of the  Finance  Act, 1950,  because  what was saved was the prior law "  for  the purposes  of the levy, assessment and collection of  income- tax  ",  which  expression  did  not  include  re-assessment proceedings, (2) that the 787 financial agreement made between the President of India  and the  Rajpramukh of Mysore dated February 28, 1950,  rendered the impugned proceedings unconstitutional and void, (3) that the  Indian  Income-tax  Act,  1922,  as  in  force  in  the retroceded  area  stood repealed on June 30,  1948,  by  the Mysore  Income-tax  and Excess Profits (Application  to  the Retroceded  Area)  (Emergency)  Act, 1948,  and  the  saving provisions  in s. 5(b) thereof or in para (2), sub-para  (b) of Sch.  A to the Retroceded Area (Application of Laws) Act, 1948,  did  not  save s. 34 in so far as  it  permitted  re- assessment  proceedings in respect of years in  which  there had been an assessment already, and (4) that after June  30, 1948, and until April 1, 1950, the Income-tax Officer in the retroceded area could re-open the assessment under s. 34  Of the  Mysore  Income-tax Act, 1923, within a period  of  four years  specified therein, but there was no authority to  re- open  the  assessment under s. 34 Of the  Indian  Income-tax Act. Held  :  (1)  that the expression  "  levy,  assessment  and collection  of income-tax " in s. 13(1) Of the Finance  Act, 1950,   was   wide  enough   to   comprehend   re-assessment proceedings under s. 34 Of the Indian Income-tax Act,  1922, and  that the financial agreement between the  President  of India  and the Rajpramukh of Mysore, on a true  construction of the recommendations of the Indian States Finance  Enquiry Committee,   did   not  render  the   impugned   proceedings unconstitutional or void ; Lakshmana  Shenoy  v.  The  Incomc-tax  Officer,  Ernakulam, [1959] S.C.R. 751, followed. (2)  that the saving provisions in the Mysore Income-tax and Excess   Profits  (Application  to  the   Retroceded   Area) (Emergency) Act, 1948, and the Retroceded Area  (Application of  Laws)  Act, 1948, made the prior law  available  in  all cases  in  which the income was assessed or  was  assessable

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

according  to that law before July 1, 1948, and,  therefore, they  saved s. 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act,  1922,  with regard to re-assessment proceedings ; City  Tobacco Mart and Others v. Income-tax  Officer,  Urban Circle, Bangalore, A.I.R. 1955 Mys. 49, overruled. Hirjibhai  Tribhuwandas v. Income-tax  Officer,  Rajnandgaon and another, A.I.R. 1957 M. P. 171, approved. (3)  that  the Income-tax Officer had the authority  to  re- open the assessments in the present case because the  period of  limitation  was that laid down in s. 34  of  the  Indian Income-tax  Act, as it was in force in the  retroceded  area prior to July 1, 1948.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos.165-168  of 1956. Appeals from the judgment and order dated March 22, 1955, of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 20 to 22 and 25 of 1954. 788 H.   N.  Sanyal,  Addl.   Solicitor-General  of  India,   R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant. A.   V.   Viswanatha   Sastri,  K.  R.  Choudhury   and   G. Gopalakrishnan, for the respondent. 1958.  April 28.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.K.  DAS  J.-These four appeals brought by  the  Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Bangalore, on a certificate granted by the High Court of Mysore, are from the judgment and order of  the  said High Court dated March 22, 1955, by  which  it quashed   certain  proceedings  initiated,  and  orders   of assessment  made,  against  the respondent  assesse  in  the matter of reassessment of income-tax for the years  1945-46, 1946-47, 1947-48, and 1948-1949. The  relevant  facts  are  these.   The  respondent  K.   N. Guruswamy  was carrying on business as an excise  contractor in the Civil and Military Station of Bangalore,  hereinafter called  the retroceded area, in Mysore.  He was assessed  to income-tax for each of the four years mentioned above  under the law then in force in the retroceded area by the  Income- tax  Officer having jurisdiction therein.  For  1945-46  the original assessment was made on February 12,1946, for  1946- 47 on January 21, 1949, for 1947-48 on January 22, 1949, and for  1918-49  also sometime in the year 1949.   The  tax  so assessed was duly paid by the assessee.  On January 5, 1954, more than four years after, the Income-tax Officer,  Special Circle, Bangalore, served a notice on the assessee under  s. 34  of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the  purpose  of assessing what was described as escaped’ or ’under-assessed’ income  chargeable  to income-tax for the said  years.   The assessee  appeared  through his auditors and  contested  the jurisdiction  of the Income-tax Officer to issue the  notice or make a re-assessment under s. 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act,  1922.   On February 19, 1954, the  Income-tax  Officer overruled the assessee’s objection, and made a re-assessment order  for  the  year 1945-46.  On February  25,  1954,  the assessee filed four writ petitions in the Mysore High  Court in 789 which  he  challenged  the jurisdiction  of  the  Income-tax Officer to take proceedings under s. 34 or to make an  order of   re-assessment  in  such  proceedings;  he  asked,   for appropriate orders or writs quashing the pending proceedings for three years and the order of re-assessment for  1945-46.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

During  the  pendency of the cases in the  High  Court,  the Income-tax Officer was permitted to make an assessment order for  1946-47, subject to the condition that if the  assessee succeeded in establishing that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction,  that order would also be quashed.   The  High Court  heard  all the four petitions together,  and  by  its judgment  and order dated March 22, 1955, allowed  the  writ petitions and quashed the proceedings in assessment as  also the two orders of reassessment, holding that the  Income-tax Officer  had no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings  or to  make  the  orders of  re-assessment.   The  High  Court, however,  granted a certificate that the cases were fit  for appeal  to  this  Court, and these four  appeals  have  been brought  on that certificate.  Before us, the  appeals  have been heard together and will be governed by this judgment. For  a  clear understanding and appreciation of  the  issues involved  in these appeals, it is necessary to set  out,  in brief  outline,  the political  and  constitutional  changes which  the retroceded area has from time to time  undergone; because  those  changes had  important  legal  consequences. Under the Instrument of Transfer executed sometime in  1881, when  there  was installation of the Maharaja of  Mysore  by what has been called " the rendition of the State of  Mysore ",  the Maharaja agreed to grant to the Governor-General  in Council such land as might be required for the establishment and maintenance of a British cantonment and to renounce  all jurisdiction  therein.   Pursuant  to  that  agreement,  the retroceded  area  was  granted to  the  Governor-General  in Council, and jurisdiction therein was exercised by virtue of powers  given by the Indian (Foreign Jurisdiction) Order  in Council,  1902,  made under the  Foreign  Jurisdiction  Act, 1890.   The laws administered in the area  included  various enactments made applicable thereto from time to 790 time  by  the promulgation of notifications made  under  the aforesaid  Order in Council, and one of such enactments  was the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The year 1947 ushered in great political and  constitutional changes  in India, which affected not merely what  was  then called  British  India but also the Indian States,  such  as Mysore etc.  The Indian Independence Act, 1947, brought into existence two independent Dominions, India and Pakistan,  as from  August  15, 1947.  The Act,  however,  received  Royal assent on July 18, 1947.  Section 7 set out the consequences of  the  setting  up  of the two  new  Dominions:  one  such consequence was that the suzerainty of His Majesty over  the Indian  States  lapsed,  and with it  lapsed  all  treaties, agreements  etc.,  between  His Majesty and  the  rulers  of Indian  States, including all powers, rights,  authority  or jurisdiction  exercisable by His Majesty in an Indian  State by treaty, grant, usage, suffrage etc. In  view of the aforesaid provision-perhaps in  anticipation of  it, the retroceded area was given back to the  State  of Mysore on July 26, 1947 by a notification Made by the  Crown Representative under the Indian (Foreign Jurisdiction) Order in  Council,  1937.  This did not, however,  mean  that  the Mysore laws at once came into force in the retroceded  area. On August 4, 1947, the Maharaja of Mysore enacted two  laws: the  Retrocession (Application of Laws) Act 1947, being  Act XXIII   of   1947,  and   the   Retrocession   (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1947 being Act XXIV of 1947.  The  combined effect  of  these laws was this: all laws in  force  in  the retroceded area prior to the the date of retrocession, which was July 26, 1947, continued to have effect and be operative in the retroceded area (vide s. 3 of Act XXIII of 1947)  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

the  Mysore  officers were given jurisdiction to  deal  with proceedings  under  the laws in force prior to the  date  of retrocession (see s. 12 of Act XXIV of 1947).  This state of affairs  continued  till June 30, 1948, on  which  date  was promulgated  the  Mysore Income-tax and Excess  Profits  Tax (Application to the Retroceded Area) (Emergency) Act,  1948, being Act XXXI of 1948.  Section 3 of this Act said- 791 "Notwithstanding  anything to the contrary in section  3  of the Retrocession (Application of Laws) Act, 1947, (i)  the Mysore Income-tax Act, 1923, and (ii) the Mysore Excess Profits Tax Act, 1946, except  sub-section (4) of section 2, and all rules,  orders and  notifications made or issued tinder the aforesaid  Acts and  for the time being in force shall with effect from  the first  day of July, 1948, and save as otherwise provided  in this  Act,  take effect in the Retroceded Area to  the  same extent and in the same manner as in the rest of Mysore." Section 6 said- " Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Indian  Income- tax  Act,  1922, and the Excess Profits Tax  Act,  1940,  as continued  by  the Retrocession (Application of  Laws)  Act, 1947, are hereby repealed." The  repeal of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, effected  by s. 6 aforesaid, was subject to other provisions of Act  XXXI of  1948, and one such provision which is material  for  the dispute  before  us  was contained in  s.  5,  the  relevant portion whereof was in these terms- "  S.  5. Notwithstanding anything to the  contrary  in  the Mysore  Income-tax Act, 1923, or the Mysore  Excess  Profits Tax Act, 1946,- (a)......................................................... (b)in  respect of the total income or profits chargeable  to income-tax  or  excess profits tax in  the  Retroceded  Area prior  to  the first day of July, 1948, but  which  has  not been, assessed until that date, the provisions of the Indian Income-tax  Act, 1922,and the Excess Profits Tax Act,  1940, as  in force in the Retroceded Area immediately before  that date  shall apply to proceedings relating to the  assessment of  such in-come or profits until the stage  of  assessment, and  the determination of the income-tax and excess  profits tax payable thereon, and the Mysore Income-tax Act, 1923, or the Mysore Excess Profits Tax Act, 1946, as the case may be, shall apply to such proceedings after that stage ; 101 792 (c).................. (d).................. (e).................. The  effect  of ss. 3, 5 (b) and 6 of Mysore  Act,  XXXI  of 1948, inter alia, was that though the Indian Incometax  Act, 1922,  stood  repealed and the Mysore Incometax  Act,  1923, came  into  effect from July 1, 1948 the former  Act  as  in force  in  the  retroceded  area  prior  to  July  1,  1948, continued to apply in respect of the total income chargeable to  income-tax in the retroceded area prior to July 1,  1948 but  which  had not been assessed until that  date,  and  it further   applied  to  all  proceedings  relating   to   the assessment of such income until the stage of assessment  and the  determination  of incometax but the Mysore  Act,  1923, applied to such proceedings after that stage.  On August  5, 1948,  was promulgated the Retroceded Area  (Application  of Laws) Act, LVII of 1948, which came into effect from  August 15,  1948.   Sections  3  and 4 of Act  LVII  of  1948,  are material for our purpose and may be quoted-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

"S. 3. Except as hereinafter in this Act provided,- (3) all laws in force in Mysore shall apply to the Retroceded Area; and (b)the  laws  in force in the  Retroceded  Area  immediately before  the  appointed day shall not, from  that  day,  have effect or be operative in the Retroceded Area,." " S. 4. The enactments in force in Mysore which are set  out in the first column of Schedule A to this Act shall apply to the  Retroceded  Area  subject  to  the  modifications   and restrictions  specified  in the second column  of  the  said Schedule and, the provisions of this Act." Schedule  A, paragraph (2), sub-paragraph (b)  repeated’  in substance  what was stated earlier in s. 5 (b). of Act  XXXI of 1948.  It read- " 2. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Mysore. Income-tax Act, 1923, or the Mysore Excess Profits Tax  Act, 1946- (a).................... 793  (b) in respect of the total income or profits chargeable to income-tax  or  excess profits tax in  the  Retroceded  Area prior to the first day of July 1948, but which has not  been assessed  until  that  date, the provisions  of  the  Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the Excess Profits Tax Act,  1940, as in force in the Retroceded Area immediately before  that, date  shall apply to proceedings relating to the  assessment of such income or profits until the stage of assessment, and the  determination of the income-tax and excess profits  tax payable thereon, and the Mysore Incometax Act, 1923, or  the Mysore  Excess  Profits Tax Act, 1946, as the case  may  be, shall apply to such proceedings after that stage; " There were further far-reaching political and constitutional changes  in 1949-50.  The Maharaja of Mysore had acceded  to the  Dominion  of  India in 1947;  this,  however,  did  not empower  the Dominion legislature to impose any tax or  duty in  the  State  of  Mysore  or  any  part  thereof.   By   a proclamation dated November 25, 1949, the Maharaja of Mysore accepted the Constitution of India, as from the date of  its commencement,   as   the  Constitution  of   Mysore,   which superseded and abrogated all other constitutional provisions inconsistent  therewith  and  in force  in  the  State.   On January 26, 1950, the Constitution of India came into force, and Mysore became a Part B State within the Constitution  of India.   On  February  28,  1950,  there  was  a   financial agreement between the Rajpramukh of Mysore and the President of  India in respect of certain  matters governed  by  Arts. 278,  291, 295 and 306 of the Constitution.  Under Art.  277 of  the Constitution, however, all taxes  which  immediately before  the  commencement  of the  Constitution  were  being levied   by   the   State  continued  to   be   so   levied, notwithstanding that those taxes were mentioned in the Union List, until provision to the contrary was made by Parliament by  law.   Such law was made by the Finance  Act,  1950,  by which  the  whole of Mysore including  the  retroceded  area became  "  taxable  territory " within the  meaning  of  the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, from April 1, 1950, and the 794 Indian   Income-tax  Act  again  came  into  force  in   the retroceded area from the aforesaid date.  Section 13 of  the Finance  Act, 1950, dealt with repeals and savings.  As  the true  scope and effect of sub-s. (1) of s. 13 is one of  the questions at issue before us, it is necessary to read it. " If immediately before the 1st day of April, 1950, there is in force in any Part B State other than Jammu and Kashmir or in  Manipur,  Tripura or Vindhya Pradesh or  in  the  merged

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

territory  of CoochBehar any law relating to  income-tax  or super-tax or tax on profits of business that law shall cease to have effect except for the purposes of the levy,  assess- ment  and collection of income-tax and super-tax in  respect of  any  period not included in the previous  year  for  the purposes  of  assessment under the  Indian  Income-tax  Act, 1922, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, or for  any subsequent year, or, as the case may be, the  levy, assessment and collection of the tax on profits of  business for any chargeable accounting period ending on or before the 31st day of March, 1949: Provided  that any reference in any such law to an  officer, authority,  tribunal  or  court  shall  be  construed  as  a reference to the corresponding officer, authority,  tribunal or court appointed or constituted under the said Act, and if any  question arises as to who such  corresponding  officer, authority, tribunal or court is, the decision of the Central Government thereon shall be final.," Now, the legal effect of the constitutional changes referred to above, so far as it has a bearing on the present dispute, may be briefly summarised as follows: the Indian  Income-tax Act,  1922,  remained in force in the retroceded  area  till June  30,  1948 ; from July 1, 1948, the  Mysore  Income-tax Act,  1923, applied, subject to this saving that the  Indian Income-tax  Act continued to apply in respect of  the  total income chargeable to income tax in the retroceded area prior to July 1, 1948, and the provisions of that Act as in  force in  the  retroceded area prior to that date applied  to  all proceedings relating to the assessment of such income 795 upto the stage of assessment and determination of income-tax payable  thereon.   This position continued  till  April  1, 1950,  when the Finance Act, 1950, came into force  and  the Indian  Income-tax Act, 1922, again came into force  in  the retroceded area, subject to the saving mentioned in s. 13(1) thereof. The principal question before us, as it was before the  High Court,  is one of jurisdiction.  Did the Income tax  Officer concerned have jurisdiction to issue the notice under s.  34 of  the  Indian  Income-tax  Act, 192  and  to  make  a  re- assessment  order  pursuant to sue notice ? The  High  Court pointed  out that though the notice did not clearly say  so, the  Income-tax  Officer clearly acted under s.  34  of  the Indian  Income-tax  Act,  1922, as it was in  force  in  the retroceded  area  prior  to  July  1,  1948,  and  the  writ applications were decided on that footing. The  four  main lines of argument on  which  the  respondent assessee  rested his contention that the  Incometax  Officer concerned  had no jurisdiction were these : firstly, it  was urged  that s. 34 of the Indian Incomtax Act, 1922, was  not saved by s. 13(1) of the Finance Act, 1950, because what was saved  was  the prior law " for the purposes  of  the  levy, assessment and collection of income-tax ", which  expression did not include re-assessment proceedings; secondly, it  was argueed  that, even otherwise, the financial agreement  made between the President of India and the Rajpramukh of  Mysore on February 28, 1950, which received constitutional sanctity in  Art.  278  of the  Constitution  rendered  the  impugned proceedings  unconstitutional  and  void;  thirdly,  it  was submitted that the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as in  force in  the retroceded area stood repealed on June 30, 1948,  by Mysore  Act  XXXI of 1948, and the saving provisions  in  s. 5(b)  thereof  or in paragraph (2),  sub-paragraph  (b),  of Schedule A to Mysore Act LVII of 1948, did not save s. 34 in so far as it permitted re-assessment proceedings in  respect

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

of years in which there had been an assessment already;  and lastly, it was contended that after June 30, 1948, and until April 1, 1950, the Income-tax Officer in the retroceded area could re-open 796 the  assessment  under s. 34 of the  Mysore  Incometax  Act, 1923,  within a period of four years specified therein,  but there was no authority to re-open the assessment under s. 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act. Following its own decision, City Tobacco Mart and Others  v. Income-tax Officer, Urban Circle, Bangalore (1), on  certain earlier  writ petitions (nos. 52 and 53 of 1953 and 105  and 106 of 1954), the High Court held in favour of the  assessee on  the construction of s. 13 (1) of the Finance  Act,  1950 and also oil the effect of the saving provisions in s. 5 (b) of Mysore Act XXXI of 1948, and paragraph (2), sub-paragraph (b)  of  Schedule A to Mysore Act LVII of  1948.   On  these findings, it held that the Income-tax Officer concerned  had no  jurisdiction  or authority to start  the  impugned  pro- ceedings  or to make the impugned orders of assessment.   It did not feel called upon to pronounce on the validity of the argument  founded on the financial agreement dated  February 28, 1950. In Civil Appeals 143-145 of 1954, Civil Appeals 27 to 30  of 1956 and Civil Appeals 161 to 164 of 1956, Lakshmana  Shenoy v. The Income-tax Officer, Ernakulam (2), in which  judgment has  been  delivered  today, we have  fully  considered  the arguments as to the true scope and effect of s. 13(1) of the Finance  Act,  1950,  and  of  the  financial  agreement  of February  28, 1950, taken along with the recommendations  of the Indian States Finances, Enquiry Committee.  We have held therein   that  the  expression  I  levy,   assessment   and collection  of  income-tax in s. 13 (1) is  wide  enough  to comprehend  re-assessment proceedings under s. 34  and  that the financial agreement aforesaid, on a true construction of the  recommendations  of  the Enquiry  Committee,  does  not render  the impugned proceedings Unconstitutional and  void. That decision disposes of these two arguments in the present appeals. The  two  additional points which remain  for  consideration depend  on  the  interpretation  to be  put  on  the  saving provisions  in  s.  5(b)  of Mysore Act  XXXI  of  1948  and paragraph (2), sub-paragraph (b) of Schedule (1) A.I.R. 1955 MYS. 49. (2) [1959] S.C.R. 751. 797 A  to  Mysore  Act  LVII  of  1948.   These  provisions  are expressed  in identical terms, and the question is  if  they save  s. 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act with regard to  re- assessment  proceedings.   We  think that they  do.   It  is worthy  of  note  that the saving provisions  say  that  the Indian  Income-tax Act, 1922, as in force in the  retroceded area  prior to July 1, 1948, shall apply in respect  of  the total income chargeable to income tax prior to that date and it shall apply to proceedings relating to the assessment  of Such income, until the stage of assessment and determination of  income-tax  payable thereon.  ’Total income’  means  the total  amount of income, profits and gains computed  in  the manner  laid down in the Act, and there are no good  reasons why the word ’assessment’ occurring in the saving provisions should  be  restricted  in the manner  suggested  so  as  to exclude  proceedings  for assessment of  escaped  income  or under-assessed  income.   On  behalf  of  the  assessee  our attention  has  been drawn to the words "in respect  of  the total income chargeable to income-tax............ but  which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

has  not  been assessed until that date " occurring  in  the saving provisions and the argument is that, those words show that   there  was  no  intention  to  permit  reopening   of assessments  which had been made already.  We are unable  to accept  this  argument.  In its normal sense, I  to  assess’ means  ’to  fix  the  amount of tax  or  to  determine  such amount’.   The  process  of re-assessment  is  to  the  same purpose  and  is included in the connotation of the  term  " assessment   ".  The  reasons  which  led  us  to   give   a comprehensive  meaning to the word " assessment " in  s.  13 (1) of the Finance Act, 1950, operate equally with regard to the saving provisions under present consideration.  We agree with the view expressed in Hirjibhai Tribhuvandas v. Income- tax Officer, Rajnandgaon and another (1), that s. 34 of  the Income  _tax Act contemplates different cases in  which  the power  to assess escaped income has been given; where  there has been no assessment at all, the, term " assessment "  may be  appropriate and where there was assessment at too low  a rate or with (1)  A.I.R. 1957 M.P. 171. 798 unjustified  exemptions,  the  term  re-assessment’  may  be appropriate,  and  it  may have been necessary  to  use  two different  terms to cover with clarity the  different  cases dealt with in the section ; but this does not mean that  the two  terms should be treated as mutually exclusive  or  that the  word  ’assessment’ in the saving provisions  should  be given  a  restricted  meaning.  The  object  of  the  saving provisions was obviously to make the prior law available  in all cases in which the income was assessed or was assessable according  to  that  law  before July 1,  1948,  and  it  is difficult  to  see  why  only  a  part  of  the  process  of assessment should be saved and the other part repealed. We, therefore, hold that the saving provisions save s. 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in its entirety, as it  was in  force in the retroceded area prior to July 1, 1948,  and the contention of the respondent that it stood repealed from that  date is not correct.  As to the period of  limitation, it  would  be the period laid down in s. 34  of  the  Indian Income-tax  Act  as it was in force in the  retroceded  area prior to July 1, 1948. The result, therefore, is that these appeals succeed and the judgment  and order of the High Court of Mysore dated  March 22, 1955, are set aside and the writ petitions filed by  the respondent  assessee are dismissed.  The appellant will  get his costs in this Court and the High Court. Appeals allowed. 799