Judgment 1. On 11-9-1933, the Raja of Panchkote executed two documents of trust dedicating certain properties in respect of three groups of family deities. By the first document one set of properties was dedicated to three deities of Banaras, viz., (1) Jyotishwari Shiva, (2) Lakshminarain Jew and (3) Jyotishwari, Kalimata; and another set of properties was dedicated to three deities of Dalijora, viz., (1) Jyotishwari Shiva, (2) Jyotishwari Baglamata, and (3) Lakshminarain Jew. By the second document a third set of properties was dedicated to four deities installed at Kashipore temple, viz., (1) Rajarajeshwari Mata, (2) Lakshminarain Jew, (3) Shyamchand Jew and (4) Raghubar Jew. The assessment in this case was for two years 1940-41 and 1941-42 and the corresponding accounting: years are 1346 and 1347 Bengali Samvat. The trustee of all the deities appointed under the trust deeds is Shri Raja Sankari Prasad Singh Deo, the holder of Panchkote Raj 2. Originally, the Income-tax Officer treated the whole income from the properties covered by the two documents as the personal income of the Raja. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside "the assessment holding that there was a valid dedication for religious purpose. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed that the deities should be assessed through the Raja who was their Shebait 3. Accordingly, the Income-tax Officer made a fresh assessment against each group of deities installed at Banares, Dalijora and Kashipore. When the matter was taken in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner he directed that the deities installed at Banares, Dalijora, and Kashipore should be treated as three "association of persons" and the assessment should be at the maximum rate under Section 41(1), Income-tax Act. The reason given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was that the trust deeds did not specify the share of each deity, in the income of the properties. The matter was taken in appeal on behalf of the Trustee to the Appellate Tribunal. 4. It was claimed on behalf of the Trustee that the trust income is exempt from income-tax under Sec. 4(3)(i) of the Act. This argument was rejected by the Tribunal. It was also argued on behalf of the trustee that there was no warrant for imposing the maximum rate under the proviso to Sec. 41(1). The Tribunal took the view that the trust was in favour of named deities and though their shares were not defined in the. This argument was rejected by the Tribunal. It was also argued on behalf of the trustee that there was no warrant for imposing the maximum rate under the proviso to Sec. 41(1). The Tribunal took the view that the trust was in favour of named deities and though their shares were not defined in the. trust deeds it must be taken that the deities have been granted equal shares in the income of the properties. 5. In support of this proposition the Tribunal referred to -- "Jogeswar Narain v. Ramchandra Dutt. 23 Ind App 37 (PC) (A). The Tribunal therefore directed that there should be separate assessment of the trustee as regards the income of each of the deities of which he is the trustee. The matter was then taken up to the High Court on a reference under Sec. 66, Indian Income-tax Act. The High Court held that the order of the Tribunal was correct and that there should be separate assessment, of the trustee as regards the income of each cf the deities. The judgment of the High Court is reported in -- Jyotishwari Kalimata v. Commr. of Income-tax, B. and O., AIR 1947 Pat 178 (B). The High Court expressed the opinion that although the shares of the deities were not defined in the trust deeds still the deities should be treated in the eye of law to have equal shares in the trust properties, and, therefore, the income of the trust properties in the hands of the trustee was not liable to be assessed at a maximum rate under the first proviso to Sec. 41(1) but the assessment of the trustee should be at the rate applicable for the individual income of each of the deities in each group. After the decision of the High Court, proceedings were started by the income-tax authorities under Sec.34 in respect of each of the ten deities. It was contended before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the proceedings were started after a lapse of four years prescribed by Sec.34, and the assessments were, therefore, illegal. 6. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner acceded to this contention and cancelled all the assessments made upon the trustee for both the assessment years. The Income-tax Department took the matter in appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. 6. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner acceded to this contention and cancelled all the assessments made upon the trustee for both the assessment years. The Income-tax Department took the matter in appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The view taken by the Tribunal was that the proceedings under Sec.34 were only a continuation of the previous assessment proceedings in which reference has been made to the High Court. The Tribunal accordingly held that the proviso to Sec.34 (2) applied and the assessments made in respect of each of the ten deities for both the assessment years were not barred by limitation. 7. At the instance of the assesses, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court: "Whether the revised assessments made on the trustee Raja Shankariprasad Singh Deo in respect to the income of each, individual deity for assessment years 1940-41 and 1941-42 initiated by notices dated 17-1-47 and 18-1-47 under Section 34, Indian Income-tax Act are valid in law?" 8. On behalf of the assessee, Mr. S.N. Datta put forward the argument that the assessments made with regard to the individual deities under Sec.34 were barred since a period of four years had elapsed, from the end of both the years of assessments. Counsel pointed out that notices under Sec.34 were issued on two dates, 17-1-1947 and 18-1-1947, and the assessments upon the trustee with regard to the deities were completed on 31-1-1947, His contention, therefore, was that all the assessments were barred under Sec.34 (2), Income-tax Act. Learned Counsel relied upon the language of Sec.34(2) which states: "No order of assessment under Sec.23 or of assessment or re-assessment under sub-s. (1) of this section shall be made after the expiry, in any case to which Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Sec.28 applies, of eight years, and in any other case, of four years from the end of the year in which the income, profits or gains were first assessable:" 9. We are unable to accept the argument of Mr. Datta as valid. It is not correct to say that the issue of notices under Sec.34 by the income-tax authorities on 17-1-47 and 18-1-47 is tantamount to initiation of separate assessment proceedings. The income-tax authorities were merely carrying out the order of the High Court given on a reference under Sec. 66, Indian Income-tax Act in the original proceedings. Datta as valid. It is not correct to say that the issue of notices under Sec.34 by the income-tax authorities on 17-1-47 and 18-1-47 is tantamount to initiation of separate assessment proceedings. The income-tax authorities were merely carrying out the order of the High Court given on a reference under Sec. 66, Indian Income-tax Act in the original proceedings. From the history of the case it is clear that the assessment proceeding was originally started against the Raja of Panchkote who was treated as the trustee of the ten family deities. The matter was taken in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who held that the deities installed at Banaras, Dalijora, and Kashipore, should be treated as three "association of persons" and assessed at the maximum rate under Sec. 41(1), Income-tax Act. The reason given by the Appellate. Assistant Commissioner was that the shares of the deities were not specifically mentioned in the Trust Deeds. An appeal was preferred on behalf of the trustee to the Appellate Tribunal who took the view that the trust was in favour of named deities and though their shares were not defined in the Trust Deeds it must be taken in the eye of law that the deities were granted equal shares in the trust properties. The Tribunal, therefore, directed that the trustee should be assessed upon the separate income of each of the ten deities. The High Court took the same view when the case was referred to them under Sec. 66, Indian Income-tax Act. After the High Court passed order on the reference, the Income" tax Officer, issued notices under Sec.34 and made separate assessment upon the trustee as regards the income of each of the ten deities for both the assessment years. In this state of facts, we see no justification for the argument that the original proceeding had terminated or that a fresh proceeding under S. 34 against the trustee was started on 17-1-1947, or 18-1-1947. 10. Mr. Datta laid much stress on the point that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had ordered that assessment should be made upon the trustee treating the deities installed at Banaras, Dalijora and Kashipore, as three "associations of persons" and the maximum rate under the provisions of Section 41(1) should be imposed. The argument of Mr. 10. Mr. Datta laid much stress on the point that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had ordered that assessment should be made upon the trustee treating the deities installed at Banaras, Dalijora and Kashipore, as three "associations of persons" and the maximum rate under the provisions of Section 41(1) should be imposed. The argument of Mr. Datta was that the assessment of the deities had proceeded upon the basis that the deities at Banaras, Dalijora, and Kashipore had the status of three "associations of persons". Counsel further pointed out that as a result of the High Court order the position was that the deities were deemed to have equal shares in the properties covered by the trust deeds and the assessment proceedings were to be made upon the individual income of each of the deities. The contention of Mr. Datta was that the status of the deities had changed and it must be taken that when the Income-tax Officer issued notice under Sec.34 on 17-1-1947 and 18-1-47 there was a fresh proceeding of assessment and the original proceeding had terminated. 11. We do not think that there is any substance in this argument. The assessment, has been made in this case upon the trustee, the Raja of Panchkote under Sec. 41, Income-tax Act which states: "41. 11. We do not think that there is any substance in this argument. The assessment, has been made in this case upon the trustee, the Raja of Panchkote under Sec. 41, Income-tax Act which states: "41. (1) In the case of income, profits, or gains chargeable under this Act which the Courts of Wards, the Administrators General, the Official Trustees or any receiver or-manager (including any person whatever his designation who in fact manages property on behalf of another) appointed by or under any order of a Court, or any trustee or trustees appointed under a trust declared by a duly executed instrument in writing whether testamentary or otherwise (including the trustee or trustees under any wakf deed which is valid under the Mussalman Wakf Validating "Act, 1913), are entitled to receive on behalf of any person, the tax shall be levied upon and recoverable from such Court of Wards, Administrator General, Official Trustee, Receiver or Manager or trustee or trustees in the like manner and to the same amount as it would be leviable upon and recoverable from the person on whose behalf such income, profits, or gains are receivable and all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly: Provided that where any such income, profits or gains or any part thereof are not specifically receivable on behalf of any one person, or where the individual shares of the persons on whose behalf they are receivable are indeterminate or unknown the tax shall be levied and recoverable at the maximum rate: Provided further that when part only of the income, profits and gains of a trust is chargeable under this Act, that proportion only of the income, profits and gains receivable by a beneficiary from the trust which the part so chargeable bears to the whole income, profits and gains of the trust shall be deemed to have been derived from that part. (2) Nothing contained in Sub-section (1) shall prevent either the direct assessment of person on whose behalf income, profits or gains therein referred to are receivable or the recovery from such person of the tax payable in respect of such income, profits or gains." 12. The first proviso to Sec. 41 has a material bearing in this case. (2) Nothing contained in Sub-section (1) shall prevent either the direct assessment of person on whose behalf income, profits or gains therein referred to are receivable or the recovery from such person of the tax payable in respect of such income, profits or gains." 12. The first proviso to Sec. 41 has a material bearing in this case. It is clear from the history of the case that the assessment proceeding was started originally against the Raja of Panchkote in his character of trustee of the properties covered by the trust deeds. The status of the Raja was the status I of a trustee and that status has remained unchanged throughout the proceedings. The proceeding was not started against tho deities as "association of persons". 13. The proceeding was started against the trustee with respect to the trust properties dedicated to all the ten deities and since the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held on the interpretation of the trust documents that the shares of the deities in the trust properties were not defined he made a direction that the tax should be levied at the maximum rate mentioned in the proviso to Section 41, as if the deities at Banaras, Dalijora, and Kashipore, were three distinct "association of persons". The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner does not mean that the deities were in fact holding the status of "association of persons". It is only for the purpose of computing the income-tax that under the first proviso to Sec. 41 the deities are treated notionally as "association of persons". That is not the same thing as saying that the status of the deities or the status of the trustee of the deities was changed at any stage of the income-tax proceeding. 14. In our opinion, the original proceeding of assessment upon the trustee had not terminated and after the High Courb order on the Income-tax Reference the Income-tax Authorities could have proceeded to make an assessment of tax upon the trustee with respect to the individual income of each of the ten deities without taking recourse to Sec.34, Income-tax Act. In other words, _ Section 34(1) has no application to this case and it was quite unnecessary for the Income-tax authorities to have issued notice under Sec.34(1) on 17-1-1947, and 18-1-1947. If that is the correct legal position, it follows there is no bar of iimitation for making the fresh assessments. In other words, _ Section 34(1) has no application to this case and it was quite unnecessary for the Income-tax authorities to have issued notice under Sec.34(1) on 17-1-1947, and 18-1-1947. If that is the correct legal position, it follows there is no bar of iimitation for making the fresh assessments. The case would directly fall within the scope of second proviso to Sec.34 (2), Indian Income-tax Act which states: "Provided that nothing contained in this subsection shall apply to a re-assessment made in pursuance of an order under Sec.31, Sec.33, Sec. 66, or Sec. 66A." In view of the enactment of this proviso, it is clear that the revised assessments made upon the trustee, Raja Shankari Prasad Singh Deo, in respect of the each individual deity for the assessment years 1940-1941 and 1941-42 are legally valid. 15 For these reasons we hold, that the answer to the question referred to the High Court must be in favour of the Income-tax Department and against the assesses. The assessee must pay costs of this reference. Hearing fee Rs. 250/-.