9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o refer to this court the question of law as mentioned below, stated to be arising from the Tribunal's order : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 was barred by limitation ? " The brief facts of the case reveal that the assessment for the year 1983-84 was completed under section 143(3) on June 27, 1984. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala, vide order dated March 24, 1987, set aside the assessment order passed under section 143(3) for the assessment year 1983-84. The assessee filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and challenged the order of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of Mr. B. S. Gupta, learned senior advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is that sub-section (2) of section 263 was amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, and the time-limit for passing orders under section 263 was laid down with effect from October 1, 1984, as two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed, instead of two years from the date of the order sought to be revised. Therefore, the time-limit for taking action under section 263 could be taken as October 1, 1984, or thereafter and it stood extended till the end of two years from the financial year in which the order, sought to be revised, was passed. In the present case, the order under section 143(3) was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase. The assessing authority was, therefore, well within its jurisdiction in initiating and concluding the proceedings for reassessment within the time prescribed by section 14(4A). The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner firm was assessed to sales tax for the year 1956-57 by an assessment order dated September 30, 1958. Subsequently, the assessing authority issued on February 24, 1961, a notice of reassessment and assessed the petitioner on an additional turnover as escaped turnover by its order dated March 31, 1963. During the assessment year 1956-57, it was the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, that was in force and under rule 17 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1939, the assessing authority could have reopened the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red as procedural rather than substantive. This proposition of law would have only one exception, i.e., if under the existing law of limitation the right to initiate a proceeding has already become time-barred then a subsequent enlargement of time by an amendment of law cannot be availed of. As in the said case, the matter having attained finality, would vest a party with substantive right which has already accrued. This accrued right cannot be taken away by a subsequent amendment. Substantive laws determine the rights and liabilities of the parties concerned, whereas procedural laws govern the manner in which such rights or obligations are to be enforced or realised. When these rights are sought to be exercised, substantial rights get crys ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
