TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee’s appeal dismissed - - - - - Dated:- 31-8-2004 - Judge(s) : R. K. AGRAWAL., K. N. OJHA. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by R.K. Agrawal J.- By means of the present writ petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Ashwani Dhingra, seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Noida, respondent No. 4, on November 20, 2003 under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1994-95, collectively filed as annexure 8 to the writ petition and other consequential reliefs. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: According to the petitioner, he was initially residing in the State of Punjab. His land, which was in Fazilka, district Ferozepur, was acquired by the Government of Punjab on August 20, 1973, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The compensation was awarded to him on September 12,1990 and May 29,1993 under the orders passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. He was paid interest only on August 21, 2001, from the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by limitation as provided under sections 149(1)(b) and 150(1) and (2) of the Act. He relied upon a decision of the apex court in the case of K.M. Sharma v. ITO [2002] 254 ITR 772. Sri Govind Krishna, learned counsel, submitted that in view of the provisions of section 150(1) and (2) of the Act, the notices in question are well within limitation as the same have been issued in consequence of the order passed by the court in the land acquisition proceedings. He submitted that the decision of the apex court in the case of K.M. Sharma [2002] 254 ITR 772 is of no assistance to the petitioner, on the other hand it helps the Revenue. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that the apex court in the case of K.M. Sharma [2002] 254 ITR 772 had considered the amendment made in section 150(1) of the Act by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, with effect from April 1,1989. The words "or by a court in any proceeding under any other law" were inserted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, with effect from April 1, 1989. After its amendment section 150 of the Act reads as follows: "150.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 149, the notice under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings under the provisions of section 149 of the Act." It has further held as follows: "A fiscal statute more particularly a provision such as the present one regulating period of limitation must receive strict construction. The law of limitation is intended to give certainty and finality to legal proceedings and to avoid exposure to risk of litigation to litigants for an indefinite period on future unforeseen events. Proceedings, which have attained finality under existing law due to bar of limitation cannot be held to be open for revival unless the amended provision is clearly given retrospective operation so as to allow upsetting of proceedings, which had already been concluded and attained finality. The amendment to sub-section (1) of section 150 is not expressed to be retrospective and, therefore, has to be held as only prospective. The amendment made to sub-section (1) of section 150 which intends to lift the embargo of period of limitation under section 149 to enable the authorities to reopen assessments not only on the basis of orders passed in proceedings under the Income-tax Act but also on the order of a court in any proceedings under any law has to be applied pros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years had already expired and no notice under section 148 can be issued is misconceived. The apex court had already held that the amendment made in section 150(1) is operative from April 1, 1989, and it will not inure for assessments which had already become final due to the bar of limitation prior to April 1, 1989. It is well-settled that the interest on compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act is of the nature of income as held by the apex court in the cases of Dr. Shamlal Narula v. CIT [1964] 53 ITR 151 ; T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 465; K.S. Krishna Rao v. CIT [1990] 181 ITR 408; Bikram Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector [1997] 224 ITR 551. It is also well-settled that the interest on enhanced compensation ordered by the court accrues from the date when the possession of the land is taken and it accrues from year to year as held by the apex court in the cases of CIT v. T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty [1987] 165 ITR 231; Rama Bar v. CIT [1990] 181 ITR 400 and K.S. Krishna Rao v. CIT [1990] 181 ITR 408. In the counter affidavit, the reason for issuing the notices under section 148 of the Act for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1994-95 has been stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal refers the matter to the High Court, the order that was considered by the Tribunal is the order of the Assessing Officer? No. It is the order of the Tribunal that is being referred. For example, in this case, where there is a reference to the High Court against the order of the Tribunal, it will be the order of the Tribunal that will be material. Further, according to us, when an order is passed by the original authority and an appeal is filed, the order passed by the original authority merges with that of the order of the appellate authority. When a second appeal is filed, the subject-matter is the order of the appellate authority. So also, when the order of the Tribunal is challenged, what is the subject-matter, is the order of the Tribunal. If that be so, there is no difficulty in construing section 150(2). Then, in this case, the order which was the subject-matter of appeal is to be construed as the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on March 1, 1984. If so, the reassessment for 1978-79 will also be barred." The aforesaid decision is not at all applicable in the present case as in the present case the action has been taken in consequence of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
