9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (10) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led by the assessee for the asst. year under appeal, the ITo made an order u/s. 143(1) of the Act on5-1-1981. Subsequently, the ITO issued notice u/s. 148 and served it on the assessee on24-8-1982for initiation of proceedings for reassessment u/s. 147 (b) of the Act. The assessee filed the return in response to this notice under protest and also submitted a letter dated19-8-1983with regard to these proceedings. The ITO had a discussion with the assessee and considering the reply dated19-8-1983dropped the proceedings on22-8-1983. 3. As on22-8-1983when the order u/s. 147 (b) read with section 148 was made by the ITO dropping the reassessment proceedings section 263(2) of the Act stood on the statute as under : " (2) No order shall be made u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidering full facts of the case". The CIT was of the opinion that the ITO failed to check up the mistake of the non-disclosure of the opening and closing stock by the assessee and without making enquiries order dated22-8-1983was made. In terms of section 263, a notice was issued to the assessee to show cause why a necessary order need not be made by the CIT. The assessee objected and also pointed out that there was no understatement as would be evident from the copies of the trading account for the assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79 filed during the proceedings u/s. 263 before the CIT. It was also projected to the CIT that everything was available to the ITO and he was fully satisfied after discussion with the assessee before dr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht to be revised, the limitation of time now expires after two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. Now, so far as the limitation of time is concerned, the order of the CIT made on26-7-1987is within time both on the basis of the law as it stood when the order of the reassessment on22-8-1983was made as well as in accordance with the provisions of the substituted sub-section (2) of section 263. Therefore, before us this aspect of the matter was not argued by the parties. 7. Before us the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had a vested right on the date when the reassessment order was passed by the ITO on22-8-1983. This vested right has not been taken away by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peration should not be given to the statute so as to affect, alter or destroy any right already acquired or to revive any remedy already lost by efflux of time. 10. The Supreme Court in the latest case of CIT v. Shah Sadiq & Sons [1987] 166 ITR 102 has held that accrued rights are saved even if not expressly saved by saving clause of a repealing statute. A combined reading of the three judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to supra show that any vested right of an assessee cannot be tinkered with unless the Legislature has specifically empowered the statutory authority to do so. When we look at the provisions in sub-section (2) of section 263 brought on the statute book w.e.f. 1-10-1984 by the Taxation laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
