Mohinder Jaspal Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - (7) as regards the question of limitation, explanationn, (1) in section 153 is clearly applicable. 2 has to be answered in favor of the revenue as well.b.n. kirpal, j.(1) the income tax tribunal has referred the following two questions to this court : '1. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 144 of the income tax act, 1961 pertained to the branch of procedural law and the same applied to all income-tax proceedings pending on 1.1.1976 irrespective of the assessment year to which those proceedings. 2. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment orders made by the income-tax officer were beyond the period of limitation prescribed by section 153 of the act and so void in law?'(2) in respect to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, the assessed did not return any capital gain in respect of the property known as 'narinder place', parliament street, new delhi which had been sold by her. according to her there was no capital gain involved but the income tax officer did not accept her contention and levied capital gain tax. appeals were filed before the commissioner of income tax (appeals). subsequently relief was granted because the cit (appeals) agreed with the assessed that the provisions of section 52(2) of the act could not be invoked, as had been done by the income tax officer. nevertheless the commissioner of income tax (appeals) did not accept the valuation of the property as on 1.1.54 as put by the assessed. (3) second appeals were filed to the tribunal and it was, inter alias urged that the proceedings for the years in question under section 144b of the act were illegal and void inasmuch as section 144b of the act was substantive law and did not apply as the same was not procedural. the argument was that the said provision came into effect from 1.1.76 and, thereforee, was not applicable to earlier assessment years. it was also contended that the period of limitation for completing the assessment was two years under the provisions of section 153(1)(a)(iii) and, thereforee, the assessment was time barred. (4) the income tax tribunal came to the conclusion that the provisions of section 144b were procedural in nature and because of the explanationn contained in section 153, the assessment in question shall be barred by time. it is thereafter that the aforesaid reference was made to this court. (5) it is not disputed that it is now a settled law that the provisions of section 144b are procedural in nature. this being so, the said provision would apply even in relation to the assessment years prior to 1.1.76 with regard to those assessments which were not complete. (see ; 129 itr 481 ; : [1985]152itr128(ap) ; : [1988]171itr214(ap) and : [1984]145itr572(mp) . (6) question no. i has, thereforee to be answered in favor of the revenue and against the assessed. (7) as regards the question of limitation, explanationn, (1) in section 153 is clearly applicable. once it is held that the provisions of section 144b could be invoked than the period of limitation has to be computed by applying the said explanationn and according to explanationn (1) (iv),the period of 180 days commences from the date on which the assessing officer forwards the draft order within which the assessment can be completed. (8) it is admitted in the present case the assessment was completed within the said period of 180 days and, thereforee, question no. 2 has to be answered in favor of the revenue as well. (9) there will be no order as to costs. answers in favor of revenue.