9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e coffee estate in Attapadi. For the assessment year 1979-80 for which the valuation date is 31-3-1979 the assessees admitted share interest therein at Rs. 22,780 each and this was adopted by the WTO who passed the assessment orders on 5-11-1983 in the case of L.G. Balakrishnan, L.G. Varadarajulu, L.G. Ramamurthy and N.G. Nityanand while he passed the assessment orders on 25-10-1983 in the case of Shri B. Vijayakumar and Smt. B. Sarojini. The Commissioner found on verification of the records that the assessee sold their individual share of interest in the aforesaid coffee estate for a consideration of Rs. 1,72,500 each in the month of November 1980 and the value of the share was determined at Rs. 1 lakh in the assessment year 1980-81 though ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the value of coffee estates during 1980-81 but the Commissioner observed that the value assessed on 31-3-1979 differed vastly from the value assessed in 1980-81 and the sale price realised in November 1980 and, therefore, there was underassessment for the year 1979-80. Consequently, the Commissioner set aside the assessments with a direction to the WTO to pass fresh orders in the light of the discussion contained in the revisionary orders. 4. Shri J.B. Swaminathan, the learned counsel for the assessees, reiterated the grounds taken by the assessees and also the same contentions were raised before the Commissioner at the time of revision proceedings. According to him, the old law of limitation of two years' time limit from the date of asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner. He also referred to the grounds regarding merger. On merits his contention was that just because the assessment for 1980-81 was revised presumably on the basis of audit objection and though the assessees had acquiesced in the reassessment proceedings without raising any technical objection, there was no reason to hold that there was underassessment for the earlier assessment year 1979-80 on the score of reassessment for the assessment year 1980-81. 5. The learned departmental representative supported the orders of the Commissioner by relying on the amended provisions of law and also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.C. Prashar v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas [1963] 49 ITR 1 and the decision of the Madras ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1984. 7. We have considered the rival contentions on the record. In our opinion the assessees' contention that the revision orders passed by the Commissioner were barred by time is not correct in view of the clear provisions of law contained in the amendment to section 25(3) and which has been clearly elucidated by the Board in the first part of Circular No. 402 dated 1-12-1984 which is reproduced below, for the sake of facility : " As a consequence of the amendment of section 263, by section 47 of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, the limitation for passing an order under section 263 will, in view of general principles of interpretation of statutes, stand extended in cases where the period of limitation originally laid down in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court observed that section 275 is in the nature of procedural provision and there is no question of any vested right according to any assessee by reason of the assessment being completed on any particular date and it is well settled that there is no vested right in any procedural matter. The Madras High Court held that the amended provisions of section 275 alone will apply so long as the period of limitation has not expired on 1-4-1971 when the amended provision was brought into force. The same view has been expressed by the Madras High Court in the earlier case of CWT v. Savithri [TC Nos. 165 to 167 of 1975, dated 17-12-1979] which relates to similar amendment made to section 18 of the Act by the Finance Act, 1969. Following respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar 1980-81 wherein enhanced valuation of Rs. 1 lakh was adopted by the WTO on the basis of the same information, namely, the assessees have sold their share of interest for Rs. 1,70,500 each in November 1980. On this premise, therefore, the same consideration would be applied so for as underassessment for the assessment year 1979-80 also. It is only a case of distinction without there being any difference between reassessment under section 147 of the 1961 Act for the assessment year 1980-81 and fresh order for the assessment year 1979-80 passed to give effect to the revisionary order of the Commissioner. 12. In the case of K.G. Kemptur v. Second WTO [1984] 146 ITR 611 the Karnataka High Court observed that the report of the Valuation Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
