9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (3) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the two assessment years in question. The returns had to be filed by September 30, 1965, and September 30, 1966, for the two assessment years. They were, in fact, filed on February 28, 1968. In the course of the assessment proceeding, the Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty in terms of section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. It would be relevant to state here that the assessments for the two assessment years were completed on November 3, 1969. The penalty, in terms of section 27 l(1)(a) of the Incometax Act, was imposed by order dated March 28, 1972. The Income-tax Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 8,336 for the assessment year 1965-66 and Rs. 11,883 for 1966-67. The assessee filed an appeal against the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a proceeding under this Chapter for the levy of penalty is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded. " Subsequently, by section 50 of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, section 275 was amended and so far as is relevant is as follows : " 275. No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed (a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 246 or an 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 initiat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the law relating to limitation being procedural and the period of limitation under the old law not having expired, the new law would govern the case. Time in terms of the old law not having run out, the amended law of limitation would take over. The view that we have taken finds support in a Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Watan Mechanical Turning Works [1977] 107 ITR 743, where their Lordships observed that no one has a vested and substantive right in procedure and limitation has to be considered as a part of the procedural law as distinguished from the substantive law. We do not intend to encumber this judgment by reference to the decisions of several other High Courts. Suffice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
