9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (11) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent is an advocate. He filed his return of income for the assessment year 1958-59 on September 3, 1958. On assessment it was found that he had concealed his income. A penalty of Rs. 3,000 was imposed on him by order dated March 12, 1965. This was eventually confirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Additional Income-tax Commissioner, Bhopal, made an order under s. 288(4) of the Act on February 26, 1971, disqualifying the respondent from representing an assessee before the I.T. authorities for a period of two years. The respondent appealed to the Central Board of Direct Taxes. His appeal was dismissed. He brought a writ petition for setting aside his disbarment from practice. A learned single judge held that the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7(2)(g) of the Act which lays down that: " Any proceeding for the imposition of a penalty in respect of any assessment for the year ending on 31st day of March, 1962, or any earlier year, which is completed on or after the 1st day of April, 1962, may be initiated and any such penalty may be imposed under this Act. " In our opinion s. 288(4) which empowers the Commissioner to disbar a practitioner is clearly prospective in character. For his act or default penalty could be imposed on the respondent under s. 28(1)(c) of the Act of 1922. After the coming into force of the Act of 1961 that penalty was imposable under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 because the Act of 1922 had since been repealed. Therefore, no more than a penalty in the sense ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, provision such as s. 288(4) it will fall within the prohibition against ex post facto legislation. An expost facto legislation is condemned on the ground that it is harsh and unjust. If a retroactive effect is given to s. 288(4) it will be perfectly shocking to our sense of justice. The respondent for his act or default could be visited with a penalty only. Under the Act of 1922 he could not be disbarred. That was not the law at that time. A greater punishment cannot be inflicted than what the law annexed to the act when it was committed. Disbarment is an ex Post facto punishment. It will be against all canons of justice to hold that for an act done in 1958, which at that time could be the subject of a penalty only in the sense of a pec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it should be resolved in favour of prospective operation. An Act which attaches a new disability or disqualification in respect of past transactions must be presumed to be intended not to have a retrospective operation. The rule is founded on the proposition that since every citizen is presumed to know the law and to order his affairs in accordance with its provisions, it would be unjust, even where the Legislature has the power to enact a law with retroactive effect, unless it is clear that such is the Legislature's purpose, to allow the enactment of legislation to operate in retrospection. Take this case. The respondent did not know in 1958 that his errors and lapses will take him on the road to ruin and disbarment. The kinship between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
