1964 (9) TMI 9 - SC - Income Tax

Scope of the retrospective operation of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1956 (U.P. Act No. XIV of 1956) questioned Held that - Here we are dealing with an Act whose constitutionality is not questioned. It has expressly conferred power on the appropriate authority to review its previous order if an application was filed within the time prescribed. When once that power of review was exercised, the proceedings were re-opened. In this view, no question of the application of an amending Act to a barred claim would arise. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Scope of retrospective operation of U.P. Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1956.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal questioning the retrospective operation of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1956. The appellant was assessed for agricultural income-tax for the year 1952-53 by the Additional Collector under the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948. Subsequently, an ordinance and an amendment were passed to include the Additional Collector as part of the definition of "Collector." The appellant challenged the assessment through a petition in the High Court, which was dismissed. The appellant raised two points: first, that the assessment was barred by limitation, and second, that the amount of malikhana could not be subject to assessment. The second point was not considered as it was not raised in the High Court, and the appellant was not allowed to raise it later. The primary issue revolved around the interpretation of the relevant provisions of Act III of 1949 and Act XIV of 1956.

The Court examined the provisions of Act XIV of 1956, which amended the definition of "Collector" to include an Additional Collector. Section 11 of the Act allowed for a review of previous assessments if set aside due to lack of jurisdiction. In this case, the proceedings initiated by the Additional Collector were quashed due to lack of authority under Act III of 1949. However, after the amendment, the appropriate authority applied for a review within the prescribed time, leading to the restoration of the proceedings before the Additional Collector. As per the amended Act, the Additional Collector was deemed to have been the Collector from the beginning, validating the earlier proceedings. Therefore, the Court concluded that no question of limitation arose as the proceedings were initiated in time and the subsequent assessment was deemed valid.

The Court distinguished previous judgments cited by the appellant, emphasizing that the present case dealt with an Act conferring the power to review previous orders within the specified time frame. Once the power of review was exercised, the proceedings were reopened, and the application of the amending Act to a barred claim did not apply. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal with costs.