TMI Blog1975 (12) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o impose penalty in consequence of the amendment of section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" The assessee is an individual deriving income from his share in a partnership business styled as "M/s. Dhadi Sahu Others". For the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, the assessee filed returns of income disclosing his share income only of the said firm. Assessments were completed for these two 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 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposable exceeded Rs. 1,000 whereas after the amendment he had jurisdiction only in cases where the particulars of income or income in respect of which particulars have been concealed by the assessee exceed Rs. 25,000 and, as admittedly, in this case, the difference between the returned income and assessed income which may be deemed to have been the amount in respect of which particulars of income have been concealed or in respect of which inaccurate particulars of income have been furnished under the Explanation did not exceed Rs. 25,000, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner failed to have jurisdiction and, therefore, the penalties imposed by him cannot be sustained.... " Prior to the amendment, sub-section (2) read thus: " Notwit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht in any course of procedure. He has only the right of prosecution or defence in the manner prescribed for the time being by or for the court in which the case is pending and if by an Act of Parliament the mode of procedure is altered he has no other right than to proceed according to the altered mode. In other words, a change in the law of procedure operates retrospectively and unlike the law relating to vested right is not only prospective." In the case of Nani Gopal Mitra v. State of Bihar it has been observed: "It is true that as a general rule alterations in the form of procedure are retrospective in character unless there is some good reason or other why they should not be. In James Gardner v. Edward A. Lucas Lord Blackburn sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appreciate the ratio are these: A had obtained a decree for money against B in a suit for recovery of the price of Barga crops in the court of a munsif and he put the decree into execution. B filed an application for relief before the Debt Settlement Board under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act (7 of 1936). A notice under section 34 of that Act was issued on 25th June, 1940. In pursuance of this notice, the munsif stayed the execution proceedings. On 11th July, 1940, the Act underwent amendment by Bengal Act 8 of 1940 and section 20 of the Act 7 of 1936 was amended by inserting therein the following words : "or whether a liability is a debt or not" before the words "the Board shall decide the matter". On 24th August, 1940, A objected to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
