Prospective operation of disqualification provisions bars retrospective disbarment for pre-Act defaults under income-tax law.

Section 288(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could not be applied to disqualify a practitioner for a default committed when the Income-tax Act, 1922 was in force. The court treated disbarment as a new disability, not a merely pecuniary consequence, and held that in the absence of clear words, a provision imposing fresh disqualification for past conduct is presumed to operate prospectively. Applying it retrospectively would create an ex post facto enlargement of punishment. The disbarment order was therefore unsustainable, and the respondent's earlier conduct did not attract the 1961 disqualification provision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the power under section 288(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to disqualify a practitioner could be applied to a default committed before the Act of 1961 came into force, so as to justify the respondent's disbarment.

Analysis: The default for which penalty was imposed arose when the Income-tax Act, 1922 was in force, and the liability was later dealt with under section 297(2)(g) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 through section 271(1)(c). The added consequence under section 288(4) was not merely a pecuniary penalty but a new disability in the nature of disbarment. In the absence of clear legislative language, a provision imposing a new disqualification for past conduct is presumed to operate prospectively, and applying it to earlier defaults would amount to an ex post facto and oppressive enlargement of punishment.

Conclusion: Section 288(4) could not be invoked retrospectively against the respondent, and the disbarment order was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The disqualification provision was held to operate only for defaults committed after the commencement of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the respondent's prior conduct could not attract disbarment.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory provision creating a new disability or enhanced punishment for past conduct is presumed to be prospective unless the legislature clearly indicates retrospective operation.

---