9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (5) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce under section 263 was not called for. The Commissioner finally passed a consolidated order on 26-3-1985 whereby he set aside the assessments and gave directions to the Income-tax Officer as to the manner in which assessments are to be completed. The assessee is in appeal challenging the same. 3. Shri R. Krishnamoorthy, the learned counsel for the assessee, raised a preliminary objection which touches upon limitation. It is his case that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction on 26-3-1985 to pass the impugned order inasmuch as it was beyond the period of limitation specified in the section as it obtained on the date the assessments were made. The argument for the revenue has been that the Commissioner was competent in view of the amendment made to section 263(2) which had come into force before the period allowed under the earlier provision had elapsed. 4. Section 263(2), as it stood on the date of assessments, prohibited the Commissioner from revising an order after the expiry of two years from the date of the order sought to be revised, namely, the order of assessment. This provision was amended by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 and with effect from 1-10-1984 there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equent enactment either expressly or by necessary implication. 8. In the case of Amarnath Ajitkumar of Bhind, the assessee had submitted quarterly returns when Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 2007S was in force. This Act was repealed with effect from 1-4-1959 by Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Sales Tax Officer passed assessments in November 1961. In October, 1964 the Commissioner initiated revision proceedings under Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the point was whether the Commissioner was competent to revise the assessment. The Supreme Court, having regard to the provisions in the old Act and the repealing Act, held that the provisions of the earlier Act governed the case. The case of Siemens India Ltd. dealt with three amendments brought to the Bombay Sales Tax Act and the case depended upon the interpretation of a provision as per the third amendment. We will say more about this at the appropriate stage. 9. Section 263(2), Income-tax Act, does not lay down a period of limitation within which the Commissioner may pass an order under section 263. It prohibits the Commissioner from passing an order thereunder after a specified period which takes awa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso, he would lose his power after a specified time limit to validly pass an order. As the facts in that case did not satisfy both these conditions the revised order was held to be time barred. 12. Section 263, Income-tax Act, does not impose any condition within which a notice is to be issued to the assessee. Sub-section (2) only bars the Commissioner from revising an order after a time limit. A right of appeal (which is a vested right) may be likened to the right of the Commissioner to initiate suo motu revisional proceeding in respect of an assessment. But the law prescribing time limit for validly passing an order in revision is a procedural law and in this behalf the authorities are clear. Ordinarily, limitation bars a remedy and the right of the party as such is not lost. That is why Angel describes law of limitation as statute of repose. But there may be a statute law under which right may cease to exist after a period. For instance, under sec. 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the right to property is extinguished after the period of limitation and, in consequence, a new right is lightened up in the person against whom an action for possession could have been maintained. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribe any time limit within which the Commissioner has to issue a notice. Sub-section (1) merely stipulates issuance of a notice, but no time limit is prescribed and in this manner it is distinguishable from the third amendment made to section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act which was applied in the case of Siemens India Ltd. Sub-section (2) of section 263 merely provides a period of limitation within which the Commissioner can validly pass an order and such a provision is essentially a procedural law. If the procedural law is changed by an amendment before the assessee acquired any vested right under the earlier law, then the amended provision would have to be applied. 16. In the present case, the Commissioner had time till 23-2-1985. Much earlier to that (on 1-10-1984) the law was changed which gave an enlarged period of limitation. Therefore, the amended law will have to be applied. The fact that section 263 notice was issued after 23-2-1985 is of no consequence because section 263 does not stipulate the time within which such notice is to be given. We are clear in our view that section 263(1) as amended with effect from 1-10-1984 has to be applied in this case. It follows that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
