9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of provisions of Chap. XXII-A of the I.T. Act regarding annuity deposits and the impact of the omission of sections 280K, 280R, and 280T on the determination and enforcement of annuity deposits. Detailed Analysis: The case involved the interpretation of the provisions of Chapter XXII-A of the Income Tax Act related to annuity deposits and the consequences of the omission of sections 280K, 280R, and 280T on the determination and enforcement of annuity deposits. The assessee, a retired Chief Justice, contested the requirement to make annuity deposits for assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66, and 1966-67 under the newly introduced provisions. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the question of law to the High Court regarding the competence of the Income-tax Officer to determine the annuity deposit after the repeal of the mentioned sections by the Finance Act, 1966. The High Court analyzed the relevant provisions of Chapter XXII-A, emphasizing section 280C, which mandates annuity deposits "in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Chapter." Despite the omission of sections 280K, 280R, and 280T by the Finance Act, 1966, the Court held that the obligation to make the deposit remained enforceable. The Court rejected the argument that the omission rendered the annuity deposit scheme unworkable, stating that the power to determine the deposit was inherent in the Income Tax Act, even without the specific provisions. The Court also considered the interpretation of the General Clauses Act and held that the repeal of the mentioned sections did not affect the rights and liabilities acquired or accrued under the repealed provisions. Citing section 6(c) of the Act, the Court concluded that the rights and liabilities concerning annuity deposits remained valid and enforceable post-repeal. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the omission of the three sections did not hinder the enforcement of the annuity deposit scheme. In conclusion, the High Court answered the question in favor of the revenue, affirming the validity of determining annuity deposits despite the omission of specific sections. The judgment highlighted the continuity of rights and obligations under repealed provisions and emphasized the enforceability of annuity deposit requirements under the Income Tax Act.
|
