Prospective operation of substantive amendment prevented retrospective application to the assessee; Tribunal's view was upheld.

The HC held that the retrospective amendment to the special search assessment provisions was substantive in nature and, applying the principles of prospective overruling and prospective declaration of law, it operated prospectively. The amendment therefore did not apply to the assessee's case. The Court further found that the Tribunal's order, which had been passed without considering the amendment, did not contain an error justifying interference under section 260A. The Tribunal's view was accordingly upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the retrospective amendment to the special search assessment provisions could be applied to the present case, and whether the Tribunal erred in not giving effect to the amended law.

Analysis: The Court held that the amendment in question related to substantive law and, in the light of the principles of prospective overruling and prospective declaration of law, it would operate prospectively. The Court further held that the Tribunal's order, rendered before considering the amendment, did not suffer from error warranting interference under section 260A.

Conclusion: The retrospective amendment was not applied to the assessee's case, and the Tribunal's view was confirmed.

---