Full Bench rules ITO lacked jurisdiction to reopen firm assessment pre-April 1, 1952 under Income-tax Act section 35(5).

Ram Bhagat Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Punjab And Another.

Ram Bhagat Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Punjab And Another. - [1966] 61 ITR 146 Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessment finalized before April 1, 1952, under section 35(5) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Applicability of section 35(8) of the Income-tax Act to the present case.
3. Validity of the rectification notice issued beyond the four-year period stipulated in section 35(1) of the Income-tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to Reopen the Assessment Finalized Before April 1, 1952, Under Section 35(5) of the Income-tax Act:
The primary contention was whether the Income-tax Officer had the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment of the Kaithal firm, which was finalized on September 15, 1950, under section 35(5) of the Income-tax Act. The petitioner argued that since the assessment was completed before April 1, 1952, section 35(5) could not be invoked. The Supreme Court decisions in Income-tax Officer v. S. K. Habibullah and Second Additional Income-tax Officer v. Atmala Nagaraj were pivotal. In Habibullah's case, it was held that assessments completed before April 1, 1952, could not be reopened under section 35(5). Similarly, in Atmala Nagaraj's case, the Supreme Court reiterated that section 35(5) was inapplicable to assessments finalized before April 1, 1952, even if the firm's assessment was completed after this date. The Full Bench agreed with this interpretation, emphasizing that the statute could not retrospectively affect vested rights unless explicitly stated.

2. Applicability of Section 35(8) of the Income-tax Act to the Present Case:
An additional argument was raised regarding the applicability of section 35(8) of the Act. The petitioner's counsel contended that the notice was issued under section 35(5) and not section 35(8), and the latter could not be applied retrospectively. The Full Bench noted that when the Supreme Court decided Atmala Nagaraj's case, section 35(8) was already in existence, yet it was not applied. The Bench decided that this matter should also be considered by a larger Bench, as it was intertwined with the primary issue of jurisdiction under section 35(5).

3. Validity of the Rectification Notice Issued Beyond the Four-Year Period Stipulated in Section 35(1) of the Income-tax Act:
The petitioner argued that any rectification under section 35(1) must occur within four years from the date of the assessment order. Since the notice was issued on August 6, 1958, well beyond four years from the finalization date of September 15, 1950, it was contended that the rectification was invalid. The Full Bench highlighted that sub-section (5) of section 35, enacted in 1953, was not retrospective and could not apply to assessments completed before April 1, 1952. Therefore, the notice issued under section 35(5) was deemed beyond jurisdiction and invalid.

Conclusion:
The Full Bench concluded that the Income-tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment of the Kaithal firm finalized before April 1, 1952, under section 35(5) of the Income-tax Act. The rectification notice issued was beyond the permissible period and thus invalid. Consequently, the enhanced assessment order dated October 16, 1958, and the Commissioner's order dated May 7, 1962, were quashed. The legal question was deemed complex, and parties were directed to bear their own costs.