9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (9) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome-tax Act, 1948 (U. P. Act III of 1949). On February 9, 1956, the U. P. Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1956 (Ordinance 2 of 1956), was passed, enacting that the word "Collector" shall always be deemed to include Additional Collector. That Ordinance was later replaced by the U. P. Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act (XIV of 1956). On an application filed by the appellant, the Collector by his order dated May 9, 1956, revoked his earlier order and directed the Additional Collector to proceed to assess the appellant in accordance with law. Thereupon, the Additional Collector resumed proceedings and on June 7, 1956, passed a fresh assessment order imposing a tax of Rs. 42,761 on the appellant, and on July 4, 1956, he issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en substituted ....... (4-a) 'Collector' shall have the meaning as in the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, and will include an Additional Collector appointed under the said Act.", Section 11 of the Act reads : "Where before the commencement of this Act any court or authority has, in any proceedings under the principal Act, set aside any assessment made by an Additional Collector or Additional Assistant Collector in charge of a sub-division merely on the ground that the assessing authority had no jurisdiction to make the assessment, any party to the proceedings may, at any time within ninety days from the date of commencement of this Act, apply to the court or authority for a review of the proceedings in the light of the provisions of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deemed to have been initiated before the proper authority under the principal Act. In this view no question of limitation could possibly arise, for the proceedings were initiated in time and must be deemed to have been pending throughout and the fresh assessment was made in the said proceedings. The decisions cited by the learned counsel are really beside the mark. He relied upon the judgments of this court in S. C. Prashar v. Vasantsen and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Lakhmir Singh . One of the questions raised in those cases was whether an amending Act revived a remedy which had become barred before the amendment was introduced. That aspect of the question has no relevance to the present enquiry. Here we are dealing with an Act whose c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
