be seen. The Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Murlidhar Bhagwan Das (supra) was considering the facts, where the respondent / assessee was assessed to income-tax under Section 23(4) of the IT Act for the assessment year 1949-50, on the ground that the notice issued under sub-section (2) and (4) of Section 22 of the IT Act had not been complied with. On 27 September 1955, the said assessment was cancelled under Section 27 of the IT Act, but before the said cancellation, it was found that an interest income of Rs. 88,737/- received by the assessee in discharge of the debts due from third parties had escaped assessment as the assessee failed to disclose the same. The Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 34 (1) (a) of the IT Act for the assessment year 1949-50 on the ground that such income had escaped assessment. After the assessment of that year was set aside under Section 27 of the Act, the Income-tax Officer, ignoring the notice issued by him under Section 34 (1)(a) of the Act, included that amount in the fresh assessment made by him. The assessee preferred an appeal against that order which was disposed of by an order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on 4 December 1957, in which he held that such income was received by the assessee in the previous accounting year and, therefore, directed that the sum objected should be deleted from the assessment for the year ending 1949-50 and included in the assessment for the year ending 1948-49. Pursuant to the said direction issued by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under Section 34(1) of the Act in respect of the assessment year 1948-49. The notice issued under such section was served on the respondent on 5 December 1957. The assessee filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad praying for quashing of the proceedings, mainly on the ground that the proceedings were initiated beyond the time prescribed by Section 34 of the Act. The High Court accepted the contention and quashed the proceedings initiated by the Income-tax Officer. It is assailing such orders passed by the High Court, the proceedings reached the Supreme Court. In such context, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court examined as to what is the true meaning of the terms of the second proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act, which is quite similar to the provisions of Clause (i) of sub-section (6) of Section 153 of the IT Act. The second proviso to Section 34(3) of the IT Act which fell for consideration of the Supreme Court and
