TMI Blog1985 (3) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bout by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1980. It is now common knowledge that by an amendment introduced in section 80J of the Act, sub-section (1A) was incorporated with effect from April 1, 1972, by the amending Act and now this amended section which has been given retrospective effect has been held to be constitutionally valid by the Supreme Court. The notices impugned in these petitions were, however, issued long prior to the Supreme Court decision. The two assessment years in question for the purposes of these two petitions are 1972-73 and 1974-75. It is not necessary to refer to the entire history of the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee which is a public limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act. The ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wo writ petitions are that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was not competent to rectify an order made by the Income-tax Officer and, secondly, that the orders of the Income-tax Officer for the two assessment years referred to above being in the nature of giving effect to the relief to which the assessee was held entitled by the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1972-73 and by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the assessment year 1974-75, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was not competent to exercise any powers under section 154 of the Act. However, in the view which we are taking on the latter point, it is not necessary for us to decide the first point on which arguments have been advanced by both sides. On h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have the effect of vacating the order of the Tribunal which has been statutorily made final under section 254(4) of the Act and which has already been given effect to. Assuming for a moment as contended by the learned counsel for the Revenue that an infirmity is now created in the order by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court, that order cannot be read as automatically been corrected nor is the effect given to that order automatically undone. Its legal validity is not in any way affected by the decision of the Supreme Court. Even a wrong order has a finality and unless that finality is disturbed by a process known to law or by process authorised by law, the rights of the assessee and the Revenue will continue to be governed by the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
