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 s. 34 of 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 s. 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 opera ti on of the amended s. 34. The Commissioner claimed that s. 6 of the General Clauses Act, i897, saved the assessments as well as the notices.
