9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice under section 148(1), as it stood at the material time, was given by the Assessing Officer, calling upon the assessee to file a return of his income within thirty days. Hence, before the Tribunal, an additional ground of appeal was raised by the assessee to the effect that initiation of reassessment proceedings was bad in law and void as the notice dated November 7, 1990, was contrary to section 148(1), as it stood at the relevant time. This argument was accepted by the Tribunal on June 26, 1996. However, the law was amended by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996, retrospectively, with effect from April 1, 1989, by which the expression "not being less than thirty days" in section 148(1) stood deleted. This amending Act was assented to by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant time. He contended that, in this case, on November 7, 1990, notice under section 148(1) was given. That, such notice was contrary to section 148(1) as it then stood. However, on Parliament enacting the Finance (No. 2) Act which received the President's assent on September 28, 1996, with retrospective effect, the invalid notice was deemed to be validated and, therefore, the Tribunal erred in dismissing the miscellaneous application. He contended that the object of the Finance (No. 2) Act, was to validate notices which were contrary to the existing provisions of section 148(1) on the date when they were issued. That, in this case, on November 7, 1990, the notice was invalid, but it stood validated under the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntial assent only on September 28, 1996, by which time the entire gamut of reassessment proceedings, in this case, got concluded before the Tribunal when it allowed the appeal of the assessee striking down initiation of reassessment proceedings under the then existing law. That decision of the Tribunal was delivered on June 26, 1996, i.e., three months prior to the amending law receiving the Presidential assent. In the circumstances, the miscellaneous application filed by the Department was rightly rejected by the Tribunal as there was no mistake apparent from the record in the order of the Tribunal dated June 26, 1996. Conclusion: In the circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal in the mis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
