Judgment :- ISMAIL J. The proceedings relate to the assessment under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 (Central Act 14, of 1963), hereinafter referred to as "the Act" and the assessment year concerned is 1963-64. The assessee had filed its return of chargeable profits according to the requirement of law for the year 1963-64, but the actual assessment order was passed by the ITO on July 29, 1968. The assessee put forward a contention that the order dated July 29, 1968, being beyond four years from March 31, 1964, the end of the assessment year in question the ITO had no jurisdiction to make the order of assessment since he had to make the order of assessment within four years of the end of the assessment year. This contention of the assessee was rejected all through by the AAC and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Thereupon, the assessee applied to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for a reference of the following question to this court and that is how the matter has come up before this court "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment order dated July 29, 1968, passed under the Super Profits Tax Act and relating to the assessment year 1963-64 was not barred by limitation?" * Section 4 of the Act is the charging section and s.6 deals with return of chargeable profits to be filed by the assessee. Section 5(1) contemplates an assessee filing return voluntarily before the 30th of September of the assessment year and the proviso confers power on the ITO, to extend the date for the furnishing of the return, in his discretion. Sub-section (2) of s. 6 envisages a situation where the ITO, being of the opinion that the company is assessable under the Act, issues a notice calling upon the company to furnish the return within 30 days from the date of service of the notice. This sub-section also confers an enabling power on the ITO to extend, in his discretion, the date for the furnishing of the return. It is not in dispute that the assessee in the present case has filed the return as required by the provisions of s. 6. Section 9 is the section dealing with the procedure to be adopted to assess profits escaping assessment. It is not in dispute that the assessee in the present case has filed the return as required by the provisions of s. 6. Section 9 is the section dealing with the procedure to be adopted to assess profits escaping assessment. Section 9(a) provides that if the ITO has reason to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under s.6 for any assessment year or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for any assessment year, chargeable profits for that year have escaped assessment or have been under-assessed or assessed at too low a rate or have been made the subject-matter of excessive relief under the Act, he may at any time serve on the assessee a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under s.6, and may proceed to assess or reassess the amount chargeable to super profits tax. Section 9(b) of the Act deals with a situation where notwithstanding that there has been no omission or failure as mentioned in cl. (a) of the section on the part of the assessee, the ITO has in consequence of information in his possession reason to believe that chargeable profits assessable for any assessment year have escaped assessment or have been under assessed or assessed at too low a rate or have been made the subject of excessive relief under the Act and enables him at any time within four years of the end of that assessment year, to serve on the assessee a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under s.6 and may proceed to assess or reassess the amount chargeable to super profits tax. Thus, it will be clear that neither s. 6 nor s. 9 prescribes a time limit within which the ITO should complete the assessment proceedings and pass an order of assessment. The time limit prescribed in s. 6(1) is for filing a voluntary return by the assessee and the time limit prescribed in s. 6(2) is the time limit within which the assessee has to file a return after service of notice by the ITO. Similarly, as far as s. 9 is concerned, in cl. The time limit prescribed in s. 6(1) is for filing a voluntary return by the assessee and the time limit prescribed in s. 6(2) is the time limit within which the assessee has to file a return after service of notice by the ITO. Similarly, as far as s. 9 is concerned, in cl. (a)there is no time limit whatever for the ITO serving a notice on the assessee to file a return and it is only s. 9(b) which contains a time limit and that time limit is four years from the end of that assessment year. Section 9(b) will apply only to cases where an assessee has filed his return as provided for under s. 6 and still as a consequence of the information in the possession of the ITO he has reason to believe that chargeable profits assessable for any assessment year have escaped assessment, etc. Thus, it is not in dispute that neither s. 6 nor s. 9 imposes any time limit for the ITO completing the assessment and passing an order of assessmentSection 6 of the Act corresponds to s. 139 of the I. T. Act, l961, and s. 9 of the Act corresponds to s. 147 of the I. T. Act, 1961. The I. T. Act, 1961, contains s. 153 expressly prescribing a time limit within which an order of assessment has to be made and this time limit varies depending upon the different situations enumerated therein. As far as the Act is concerned, there is no express provision corresponding to s. 153 of the I.T. Act, 1961, prescribing a time limit. On the other hand, the situation will warrant the conclusion that the Legislature deliberately intended to exclude the applicability of s. 153 to the assessment proceedings under the Act. This is clear from s. 19 of the Act. That section says that the sections of the I.T. Act, 1961, enumerated therein will apply to the assessment to super-tax as if the said provisions were provisions of the Act and the income-tax and super-tax referred to therein refer to super-tax. Section 153 is not one of the sections enumerated by s. 19 of the Act. Therefore, s. 153 of the I.T. Act, 1961, cannot be invoked to the proceedings taken under the Act Mr. Section 153 is not one of the sections enumerated by s. 19 of the Act. Therefore, s. 153 of the I.T. Act, 1961, cannot be invoked to the proceedings taken under the Act Mr. Uttam Reddy, the learned counsel for the assessee, did not dispute the proposition that neither s. 6 nor s. 9 of the Act prescribes any time limit for the completion of assessment under the Act and, equally, he did not dispute that under s. 19 of the Act, s. 153 of the I. T. Act, 1961, had not been made applicable to the proceedings under the Act. However, what the learned counsel contends is that implicit in s. 9(b) itself is a limitation for completing the assessment within a period of four years. We are unable to accept this argument. In the absence of any express provision limiting the time within which the proceedings for assessment should be completed, it is not open to any court to imply such a limitation, more so when the statute itself has taken care to exclude the applicability of s. 153 of the I.T. Act to the proceedings under the Act when it applied certain other provisions of the I.T. Act to the proceedings under the Act. Under these circumstances, we are unable to imply the limitation contended on behalf of the assessee under s. 9(b)of the Act and consequently we answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative and against the assessee. The department is entitled to the costs of the reference. Counsel's fee Rs.500.