9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (5) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overy proceeding initiated under the I.T. Act, 1961, for recovery of tax dues on an assessment made under the previous Act, namely, the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, is not maintainable. According to the Commissioner, demand for payment of such tax having been made under the provisions of, the 1922 Act, proceedings for recovery had already started under that Act and notwithstanding the coming into force of the Act of 1961 shortly thereafter, such proceeding under the 1922 Act must continue in view of the provisions of s. 297(2)(c) of the 1961 Act. The Commissioner has, therefore, taken the view that initiation of a proceeding under the 1961 Act for recovery of such dues is not maintainable in law. The facts are not in dispute. The assessment wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t been passed." In our view, Mr. Pal is right in pointing out that the Commissioner went wrong in two ways. In the first place, be went wrong in holding that the recovery proceeding had already been initiated under the old Act of 1922 by issue of notice of demand thereunder, so that such a proceeding became pending on the date the old Act being repealed, the new Act came into force. Secondly, the Commissioner failed to take note of the fact that cl. (c) speaks of a proceeding by way of appeal, reference or revision pending before any income-tax authority, the Appellate Tribunal or any court which does not include any recovery proceeding under the old Act read with the Public Demands Recovery Act. In our view, it would have been more appr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery must be made in accordance with the provision of that Act and not the new Act of 1961. We further hold that the proceeding for recovery was yet to be initiated as and when the assessee fails to pay in accordance with the demand. The case, therefore, appropriately comes within the first part of cl. (j) referred to hereinbefore and, as such, the Revenue authorities were well within their rights to initiate a proceeding for recovery under the provisions of the new Act of 1961. In the result, these revisional applications succeed and the impugned orders of the Commissioner in the two cases referred to hereinbefore being set aside, we direct that the recovery proceedings started before the TRO in terms of the 1961 Act should continue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
