9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t aside by his order dated 25-3-1985, now under appeal. Our decision is, therefore, confined to the assessment years 1979-80 to 1982-83 only. 2. In the present case, the first point urged on behalf of the assessee is that the order of the Commissioner as made was hit by limitation. The assessments for each of the years 1979-80 to 1981-82 were completed on 25-1-1983. The assessment for the year 1982-83 was completed on 29-3-1983. The assessee does not challenge the Commissioner's action for the assessment year 1982-83 on the ground of limitation. The ground of limitation is confined to the Commissioner's action relating to the assessment years 1979-80 to 1981-82, The factual basis for the plea of limitation urged by the assessee is that when the assessments were made on 25-1-1983 under the provisions of section 25(2) the Commissioner could exercise his powers only within two years from the date of assessment, i.e., he should have passed his order under section 25(2) at least by 24-1-1985. Subsequently by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, with effect from 1-10-1984 the provisions of section 25(3) were amended to state that no order under section 25(2) could be made after the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and whether if limitation is extended by an amendment made before the original period of limitation has run out, the extended period of limitation would be available or not for making the assessment. 5. Another case relied on is the decision of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 1. This decision is only authority for the proposition that penalty is imposable according to the law as it stood on the date the return was filed, i.e., the date when the wrongful act was committed. This decision again does not help in resolving the issue before us. So also the decision in CIT v. S. Sucha Singh Anand [1984] 149 ITR 143 (Delhi). It does not, in our view, advance the assessee's argument because that case is only authority for the proposition that the offence of concealment of income took place when the first return is filed and the law applicable for imposing the penalty is the law as in force when the original return was filed and not that when the revised return was filed. 6. Yet another decision relied on is that in CIT v. Daropdi Devi [1984] 149 ITR 178 (Delhi). The issue there was related to the jurisdiction to impose penalty and it was held that the issue of juri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartmental representative also took the opportunity of replying to a contention placed by the learned counsel for the assessee with reference to the Board Circular No. 402 dated 1-12-1984 (See Taxmann's Direct Taxes Circulars, Vol. 1, 1985 edn.) which reads as under : "As a consequence of the amendment of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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 that section had not expired before October 1, 1984. However, with a view to avoiding controversy and litigation in the matter, it is desirable that orders under section 263 of the Income-tax Act are passed, as far as possible, within two years of the date of the order sought to be revised in cases where the order sought to be revised was passed before October 1, 1984." He submitted that the contention of the learned counsel that there was doubt as to whether the extended period of limitation was available or not and hence it was that the circular was issued, was not acceptable. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the possibility of harassment to an innocent person and fixes a duration for action from these two points of view. These periods are occassionally readjusted to cover some cases which would otherwise be left out and hence these amendments. An assessment can be said to become final and conclusive if no action can touch it but where the language of the statute clearly reopens closed transactions there can be no finality. We would not raise these prescribed periods to the level of those periods of limitation which confer not only immunity but also give titles by the passage of time." Viewed in the light of the ratio of the Gujarat High Court judgment referred to and the observations in S.C. Prashar's case set out aforesaid, it is to our mind beyond doubt that in the present case since limitation had not run out on 1-10-1984, when the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 extended the period of limitation, no vested right had accrued to the assessee by reason of the old period of limitation having expired which was taken away and all that happened was that the period of time which was laid down by the Legislature creating a bar against the Commissioner exercising his powers under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f enhanced the value from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 50,000, which showed that he had applied his mind to the nature of the property. For all these reasons it was submitted that the Commissioner was wrong in assuming that there was no proper enquiry before the claim that the land was agricultural in nature was accepted. 11. We have heard the objections of the learned departmental representative regarding each of the aforesaid aspects where he took as through each of the documents referred to. As far as the previous assessments are concerned, the statement of the assessee that it was agricultural property had just been accepted. Coming to the order of the AAC, dated 2-12-1981, for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77, the only point at issue before him was the valuation of what is described as agricultural lands. The nature of the land does not find a place in the discussion portion of the order of the AAC. The AAC has only confirmed the valuations and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is any clear finding as to whether the land is agricultural or not. As far as the report of the valuer is concerned, the relevant portion of the report reads as under : "Pollachi : This area is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
