9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The issue involves the interpretation of u/s 249(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically regarding the requirement of payment of undisputed tax as a condition precedent for the maintainability of an appeal. Judgment Summary: Background: The assessment for the year in question was completed by the Income-tax Officer on July 31, 1975. The assessee filed an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on October 9, 1975, without paying the undisputed tax as required by the newly inserted u/s 249(4) of the Act. Arguments Before the Tribunal: The assessee contended that u/s 249(4) applied only to appeals from the assessment year 1976-77 onwards, not to the year in question. The Revenue argued that the provision applied to all appeals filed after October 1, 1975, including the one in this case. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal held that the right of appeal is a substantive right vested in the assessee at the initiation of assessment proceedings. Any subsequent amendment cannot curtail this right, and the law applicable for assessment and appeals is that which was in force at the start of the assessment year. Therefore, the provisions of u/s 249(4) requiring payment of undisputed tax do not apply to appeals where the right accrued before the amendment. Key Points: - The right of appeal is substantive and vested at the initiation of assessment proceedings. - Amendments cannot curtail substantive rights accrued under the law at the start of the assessment year. - The requirement of paying undisputed tax u/s 249(4) does not apply to appeals where the right of appeal accrued before the amendment. - The provisions of u/s 249(4) are substantive and must be liberally construed in favor of the assessee. - The right to appeal in this case was governed by the law as it stood before the amendment on October 1, 1975. Conclusion: The High Court held that u/s 249(4) did not apply to the facts of this case, and the appeal was competent. The question was answered in favor of the assessee, and no costs were awarded. Separate Judgment: Judge K. M. Yusuf agreed with the decision of the Court.
|
