TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od of assessment should be quashed. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the notices issued under section 148 of the Act as illegal. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner is an assessee. He was assessed to income-tax by respondent No. 2, ITO B-Ward, Ujjain. The sources of his income are house property and share income from three partnership firms, namely, Babulal Porwal, Ujjain, Harishchand Ashok Kumar, Ujjain and Sharad Textiles Agency. During the assessment year 1985-86, he also derived income from bank interest amounting to Rs. 3,076. This amount of Rs. 3,076 fell to the share of the petitioner from the total interest of the firm in which he is a partner. The petitioner claimed deduction under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate in an arbitrary manner or violate any provision of law. Shri Nema, learned senior advocate, and Shri Rawat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that in fact this so called clarification which has been made retrospective will deprive the assessee of the benefits which accrued to the assessee and thus it will operate harshly and arbitrarily because the assessments had been closed long back and they are being sought to be reopened on account of sub-section (3) of section 80L. In order to appreciate the controversy, we will examine as to what is the purpose and intention of the Legislature in inserting section 80L(3) whether it contemplated benefit of deduction in the gross total income of an assessee, being an individua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication has been introduced by inserting sub-section (3) in section 80L by the Amendment Act, 1984, only with a view to remove the doubt which had arisen in some quarters, may be in the mind of the assessee and may be as a result of some assessment. Be that as it may, it appears that section 80L clearly lays down that this benefit is only admissible to an individual or Hindu undivided family and not to any firm or body of persons. We are of the opinion that this clarification has been made with effect from April 1, 1976, but in any way it does not deprive any person of any vested rights and as such, it cannot be held ultra vires or arbitrary or violative of articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The next question is regarding th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
