9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of the amended provisions of section 43B of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1984-85. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a case where the Commissioner of Income-tax filed applications under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, seeking a direction to the Tribunal to state the cases and refer them for opinion. The main question revolved around the applicability of the amended provisions of section 43B to the assessment year 1984-85, despite the amendment being effective from April 1, 1988. The Tribunal had held that the amendment was declaratory in nature and could be applied retrospectively. The core issue was whether the amendment affected vested rights or was merely clarificatory of pre-existing law. The court examined the nature of the amendment to section 43B and its proviso inserted in 1988. It was held that the proviso was declaratory and procedural, explaining how to interpret and apply the section. The court cited precedents to support the view that if a statute is curative or declaratory, retroactive operation is appropriate. The purpose of the amendment was to advance the remedy and prevent abuse by taxpayers who were not paying tax liabilities despite claiming deductions. The court also referred to previous judgments where similar provisions were interpreted to have retrospective effect. It was concluded that the amendment to section 43B was remedial and had retrospective effect from its introduction in 1984. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the amendment was declaratory and procedural, akin to the law of limitation. Additionally, the court dismissed an additional question regarding whether Mandi fee is a duty under section 43B, stating it was a question of fact and not a referable question of law. The judgment emphasized the need for finality in legal proceedings and the importance of not reactivating stale issues beyond a certain point. In conclusion, the court found no referable questions of law in the applications and dismissed them as devoid of merit. The judgment also fixed the counsel fee for each side and directed the retention and distribution of the order copies for reference in related cases.
|
