9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (12) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years on February 28, 1970, and the Income-tax Officer included the income of the minor children of the assessee who were also partners in the same firm and the income from the house property standing in the name of the assessee's wife which was held as a fact to be belonging to the assessee. As a result of these additions, while the assessee had returned an income of Rs. 5,940 for the assessment year 1968-69, he was assessed on an income of Rs. 30,840. Similarly, for the other year, as against the returned income of Rs. 7,020, he was assessed on an income of Rs. 19,472. The Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and as he was of the view that the cases were covered by section 274 of the Act, he referred the cases to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. While the matter of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was thus pending before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act of 1970, which came into force with effect from April 1, 1971, the provision in section 274(2) underwent amendment. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed penalties of Rs. 24,000 and Rs. 12,500, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of penalty. " There is no dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner gets jurisdiction to deal with a penalty matter only when there is a reference made to him by the Income-tax Officer. Section 271 requires the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to initiate proceeding for penalty where in the course of any proceeding under the Act the said authorities are satisfied that any of the three events as enumerated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of that section has happened. Thus, under the scheme in Chapter 21 of the Act, satisfaction to initiate proceeding is either of the Income-tax Officer or of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. While the proceeding originates with these officers when the initiating authority is the Income-tax Officer and the amount of penalty imposable is in excess of Rs. 1,000 under unamended sub-section (2) of section 274 of the Act the case had to be referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for disposal. In this case, the Income-tax Officer while completing the assessments for both these years, being satisfied that penalties were to be imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, referred the matter to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is expressed in the maxim, nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet, non-praeteritis-prima facie, any new law that is made affects future transactions, not past ones. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that the subject-matter of an Act might be such that, though there were not any express words to shew it, it might be retrospective. For instance, I think it is perfectly settled that if the legislature intended to frame a new procedure, that instead of proceeding in this form or that, you should proceed in another and a different way; clearly there bygone transactions are to be sued for and enforced according to the new form of procedure. Alterations in the form of procedure are always retrospective, unless there is some good reason or other why they should not be. Then, again, I think that where alterations are made in matters of evidence, certainly upon the reason of the thing, and I think upon the authorities also, those are retrospective, whether civil or criminal.......' It is, therefore, clear that as a general rule the amended law relating to procedure operates retrospectively........" The same question had been examined by a Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intainable in that forum on account of a change relating to jurisdiction. A Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Shiv Bhagwan Moti Ram Saraoji v. Onkarmal Ishar Dass dealt with the question of jurisdiction with reference to amendment during the pendency of an action. Chagla C.J., at page 373 of the report, observed : " The question that arises for determination is whether, notwithstanding the fact that the court had no jurisdiction with regard to this property at the inception of the suit, this court can try the suit with regard to this property by reason of the fact that jurisdiction was subsequently conferred on it.... Now, I think it may be stated as a general principle that no party has a vested right to a particular proceeding or to a particular forum, and it is also well-settled that all procedural laws are retrospective unless the legislature expressly states to the contrary...... This court was bound to take notice of the change in the law and was bound to administer the law as it was when the suit came on for hearing. Therefore, if the court had jurisdiction to try the suit when it came on for disposal, it could not refuse to assume jurisdiction by reason of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
