9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (11) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l for the petitioner is that the annuity deposit is not recoverable from the petitioner in view of the subsequent amendment made by the Finance Act, No. 13 of 1966, passed on May 13, 1966. The submission of the learned counsel is that after the amendment the power to make recovery no more survives in the department in view of the amendment of s. 156 and omission of ss. 280K, 280R and 280T with eff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Act which according to him are not attracted in the present case. In this connection, he has drawn our attention to CIT. v. Maharaja Pratapsingh Bahadur [1961] 41 ITR 421 (SC) and Rayala Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. Director of Enforcement, AIR 1970 SC 494. We have gone through these cases. CIT v. Maharaja Pratapsingh Bahadur [1961] 41 ITR 421 (SC) is of no avail to the learned counsel for the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the Defence of India Rules and, in our opinion, is distinguishable as its ratio is confined to the facts of that case only as observed in J. K. K. Angappan v. ITO [1974] 94 ITR 397 (Mad) The liability for payment of annuity in the present case has accrued prior to April 1, 1967, and that liability cannot be washed away by the simple omission of the provisions which, in our opinion, are not of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
