9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (1) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned net wealth of Rs. 35,474 stood accepted. Assessment is made on30th Jan., 1984For this year also the facts remain as for the asst. yr. 1979-80 and so remains the concession of the ld. Authorised representative of the assessee. 3. In identically worded orders made under s. 25(2) of the WT Act, 1957, assessments for both the years were held to be erroneous insofar as these are pre-judicial to the interest of the Revenue, hence set aside with the directions to the WTO to make a fresh assessment after proper examination and enquiry and in accordance with the law and after affording an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. The assessee is aggrieved and so very naturally we have heard the parties at length on two hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been made beyond two years period, hence are barred by limitation. 7. Before us the assessee has pressed into services the case laws reported as 52 ITR 516 at pages 528 and 522 (sic), CIT vs. Panna Devi Saraogi (1970) 78 ITR 728 at 740 (Cal), Ganga Properties vs. ITO (1979) 118 ITR 447 at 452 and 453 (Cal), CIT vs. Shantilal Agarwal (1983) 35 CTR (Pat) 304 : (1983) 142 ITR 778 at 779 and 784 (Pat); and Sharbati Devi Jhalani vs. CWT Ors. (1986) 54 CTR (Del) 85 : (1985) 159 ITR 549 (Del). 8. As regards the first contention of the assessee that there has been no opportunity of being heard, suffice it to say that paragraph 2 of the impugned orders of the CIT (in both the orders) reads as under: "In response to show cause notice. Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rders for both the years being barred by limitation, this also fails in view of the amendment brought by substitution w.e.f.1st Oct., 1984by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 in sub-s. (3) of s. 25 of the WT Act. 1957 and after amendment the said sub-section reads, "no order shall be made under sub-s (2)after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed." The amendment is procedural in nature since it dells with procedure, pure and simple and it came into being as from 1st Oct., 1984 and the impugned orders for both the years have been made on 20th March, 1986 hence are within the statutorily provided period of limitation. This contention of the assessee also fails. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
