TMI Blog1946 (8) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and completed for the assessment of the applicant under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended by the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1939, for the assessment year 1940-41. The facts of this case are somewhat similar to the facts in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 130 of 1944 Since reported as Kamakshya Narain Singh v. Commissioner of Income tax, Bihar and Orissa [1946] ( 14 ITR 683 ) disposed of today, but the relevant dates are different. In this case the assessee has been assessed for the year 1940-41, his previous year being 1939-40. On the 20th April, 1940, a notice under Section 22 (2) of the Act was served upon the assessee requiring him to furnish a return in the prescribed form. On the 22nd April, 1940, a notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Commissioner on the 30th December, 1942, and the further appeal to the Tribunal was dismissed on the 27th July, 1943. We have heard most elaborate and learned arguments by the learned Advocate-General on behalf of the assessee. His contentions may be summarised as follows: (1) The notification and the Regulation cannot apply retrospectively to this assessment on a plain reading of the terms of the two enactments, and (2) even if the Act and the Regulation can be so interpreted, the Governor has no power to give a retrospective effect either acting under Section 92(1) or acting under Section 92(2) of the Government of India Act. In our opinion these contentions are not fit to succeed in this case. It cannot be doubted that from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the question whether the notification issued on that date could not be legally made retrospective does not arise for consideration. It was then argued that even if this was so, the proceedings which were taken before the 26th May, 1940, were invalid. This contention is dealt with below. The alternative contention of the learned Advocate-General that the Governor acting under Section 92(2) could not validly pass the Regulation to apply the provisions of the Indian Finance Act retrospectively does not arise for decision in view of the opinion expressed above. But, if it was necessary to come to a decision, for the reasons given by us while disposing of Miscellaneous Judicial Cage No. 130 of 1944 Since reported as Kamakshya Narain Singh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been applied to this area. Assuming that this argument is correct, the assessee having appeared and filed the return and the assessment having been completed after the Indian Finance Act of 1940 had been applied to this area, the argument of the assessee is wholly untenable on general principles. Take as an illustration a case where an execution is taken out against the judgment-debtor without the issue and service of a notice under Order XXI, Rule 22, of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has been held that the consequent sale of his property is without jurisdiction. But where the judgment-debtor appeared before the sale and raised objections which had been overruled, it has been repeatedly held that the sale cannot be held to be without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
