Judgment :- VEERASWAMI J. This reference raises a question of limitation in respect of action taken by the revenue under section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessment for the assessment year 1948-49 was originally made on September 30, 1948, on a total income of one A. B. Fazallali. He died on August 1, 1954, leaving his widow and three sons as his heirs and legal representatives. There was a deposit of Rs. 40, 000 in the Bank of India, Palanpur, North Gujarat, by the assessee which was investigated by the revenue. This amount had not been included in the return. On February 9, 1957, notice under section 34(1)(a) of the Act was issued to one Hussain Bhai Abdullabhai, a son by the first wife of Fazallali. He filed a return on March 9, 1957, showing this amount in the D section. The validity of this notice was challenged in this court by Writ Petition No. 231 of 1957 under article 226 of the Constitution. Since no stay of further proceedings in assessment was granted, the assessment was completed on March 15, 1957, under section 34(1)(a). On March 15, 1958, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative remedy. In the meantime he had filed an appeal on April 15, 1957, which was allowed on April 24, 1958, on the ground that the notice issued under section 34(1)(a) was invalid because it had been served only on one of the four legal representatives of the deceased assessee. Thereafter on July 9, 1958, a fresh notice under section 34(1)(a) was served on all his legal representatives and the assessment was completed on December 14, 1960. The assessing officer took the view that a sum of Rs. 40, 000 was chargeable to tax It may be seen that the fresh notice issued under section 34(1)(a) was beyond eight years from the assessment year 1948-49. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal by the legal representatives held that the notice was out of time and allowed the appeal. The department took the matter before the Tribunal which was of the view that the notice was in time under the second proviso to sub-section (3) of section 34. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal by the legal representatives held that the notice was out of time and allowed the appeal. The department took the matter before the Tribunal which was of the view that the notice was in time under the second proviso to sub-section (3) of section 34. At the instance of the legal representatives, this reference is made to us under section 66(1) of the question "Whether the present proceedings initiated under section 34(1)(a) of the Act against the assessees are valid in law ?" * We are clearly of opinion that the second proviso to section 34(3) will be inapplicable. There was no direction or finding in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dated April 24, 1958, as would attract that proviso. A finding for the purpose of that proviso should be one on a point at issue in the assessment proceedings or in the appeal : Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Sitapur v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das. In that sense, there was no finding given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in his order dated April 24, 1958. The second proviso being put aside, learned counsel for the assessees contends that a fresh notice served under section 34(1)(a) beyond eight years of the assessment year is barred by time. That will be so but for any other provision For the revenue the contention is that section 4 of the Central Act 1 of 1959 saved the fresh notice from the bar of limitation. On the other hand for the assessees it is said that this provision does not have that effect. We have to solve the controversy on a construction of section 4. On the other hand for the assessees it is said that this provision does not have that effect. We have to solve the controversy on a construction of section 4. That section reads "No notice issued under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 34 of the principal Act at any time before the commencement of this Act and no assessment, reassessment or settlement made or other proceeding taken in consequence of such notice shall be called in question in any court, tribunal or other authority merely on the ground that at the time the notice was issued or at the time the assessment or reassessment was made, the time within which such notice should have been issued or the assessment or reassessment should have been made under that section as in force before its amendment by clause (a) of section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956 (18 of 1956), had expired." * rior to 1956, section 34(1)(a) as it stood from 1948 provided for a limitation of eight years computed from the assessment year in question for taking action thereunder. By the Finance Act, 1956 But it is contended for the assessees that the latter part of the section confines the saving only to notices which were issued prior to the Finance Act, 1956 "that section 4 of Act 1 of 1959 has retrospective effect. As to the scope of the section in relation to the period between 1956 and 1959, the majority opinion in that case supports the view we have taken of the section. Das J. observed" * It further appears to me that both sub-section (4) of section 34 and section 4 of the Amending Act of 1959 are meant to deal with only those cases where action is taken under section 34 as amended in 1956, but where the eight years' time-limit had already expired and the original assessment (if any) had become final prior to the amendment of section 34 in 1956. "The effect of this observation appears to be, as we understand it, that section 4 validated notices issued between 1956 and 1959 and did not cover notices issued prior to 1956. "The effect of this observation appears to be, as we understand it, that section 4 validated notices issued between 1956 and 1959 and did not cover notices issued prior to 1956. That is the effect of his Lordship's observation, is made clear from the following observation" * The last part of section 4 shows in my opinion its true intent, namely, that what is intended is to validate post-1956 action, that is, action taken under section 34 as amended by section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956. Kapur J. was of a similar view "The notices to which section 4 applies and which are validated are those that were issued between the periods mentioned in that Act, i.e., before the Amending Act, 1959, and after the Finance Act, 1956, in spite of the expiry of the eight years period before the amendment by the Finance Act of 1956." The view of Hidayatullah J. is stated thus " By the validating section 4 of the 1959 Act, any notice issued before 1959 could not be challenged even if under the 1948 Act they would be out of time." * It follows that section 4 of Act I of 1959 saves the notice under section 34(1)(a) issued on July 9, 1958, from the bar of limitationThe question referred to us is answered against the assessee with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250.