9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (3) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the authority by whom the penalty was to be imposed and the period of limitation by which the order of penalty was to be passed were matters of procedure and, therefore, in respect of these matters the law as applicable on the date of the initiation of penalty proceedings and not the law as applicable on the date of the filing of the original return will be applicable and, in this view, holding that the penalty was to be imposed by the Income-tax Officer and was within the time limit of two years from the end of the financial year in which the proceedings of penalty were initiated ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer, by means of order dated March 29, 1976, imposed a sum of Rs. 6,000 as penalty. The matter was then taken up in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range, Kanpur, who upheld the order imposing penalty passed by the Income-tax Officer. The assessee then preferred an appeal to the Incometax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, which maintained the order of penalty as confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and dismissed the appeal, vide its judgment and order dated September 24, 1977. The present income-tax reference arises out of the said judgment and order of the Tribunal. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the assessee and the Revenue. The submission made on behalf of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e exceeds a sum of rupees one thousand, the Income-tax Officer shall refer the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, who shall, for the purpose, have all the powers conferred under this Chapter for the imposition of penalty." It may be stated that the words "the minimum penalty imposable exceeds a sum of rupees one thousand" were substituted by the words "the amount of income (as determined by the Income-tax Officer on assessment) in respect of which the particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished exceeds a sum of twenty-five thousand rupees" by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, with effect from April 1, 1971. This sub-section was omitted by section 65 of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (2) of section 253, after the expiration of a period of (i) two years from the end of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or (ii) six months from the end of the month in which the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Commissioner, whichever period expires later ; (b) in any other case, after the expiration of two years from the end of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed." It is evident that while section 271 is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... number of reported decisions. In a recent case, viz., Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem Behari Khare [1989] 177 ITR 97, 107 ; AIR 1989 SC 1247, the Supreme Court has held "every law that impairs or takes away rights vested agreeably to existing laws is retrospective and is generally unjust and may be oppressive". However, it is well-settled that the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They merely bar the remedy. Similarly, no one has a vested right in a particular forum for the adjudication of one's rights and liabilities. The law of limitation being the law of procedure, the one which is applicable in a particular suit or proceeding is the law which is in force on the date on which such suit or proceeding is ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment takes place which is relevant". On this basis, the Supreme Court held that the concealment of the particulars of income was effected by the assessee on the date he filed a return of his total income, i.e., on April 24, 1968. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held it was the substituted clause (iii) brought in by the Finance Act, 1968, with effect from April 1, 1968, which governs the case. This decision of the Supreme Court was, however, one dealing with the effect of the amendment in the charging section which affects substantive rights. Clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 271 is a charging section while section 274(2) and section 275 of the Act deal with procedural matters. As such, we are of the opinion that, on the facts and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
