with regard to the question of charge to income.-tax. In that case, the assessee-company carrying on business in Chota Nagpur was assessed to tax for the year 1939·40, but the assessment was set aside by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on March 28, 1942, on the ground that the Indian Finance Act, 1939, was not in force during the assessment year 1939-40, in Chota Nagpur which was a partially excluded area. On June 30, 1942, a Regulation was promulgated by which the Indian Finance Act of 1939 was brought into force in Chota Nagpur retrospectively as from March 30, 1939. Thereupon the Income·tax Officer made an order holding that the income of the assessee for the year 1939-40 had escaped assessment and issued to the assessee a notice under s. 34 of the Income-tax Act. The validity of the notice was questioned. It was held by this Court that though the Finance Act was not in force in that area in 1939-40, th~ income of the assessee was liable to tax in that year and, therefore, it had escap· dently of the passinl( of the Finance Act but until the Finance Act It was pointed out that the income was chargeable to tax indepen· dently of the passing of the Finance Act but until the Finance Act was passed no tax could be actually levied. The same principle was reiterated by this Court in Ka/wa Devadattam v. Union of lndla('). The question in that case was whether the liability of a Hindu undivided family arose before or after partition of the family. In that case, this Court speaking through Shah, J. stated in clear terms thus :
