Jurisdiction to recover interest and costs under repealed tax dues was unavailable once recovery shifted to the 1961 Act.

The saving provision in section 297(2)(j) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 preserves sums recoverable under the repealed Income-tax Act, 1922 and recovery actions already taken, but it does not authorise recovery of disputed interest and costs claimed under section 16(a) of the Public Demands Recovery Act. After recovery proceedings were taken over under the 1961 Act, the Tax Recovery Officer was bound by Schedule II, which contains no mechanism for recovering such interest and costs in the manner sought. The record also did not show that the officer acted as a certificate officer under the Public Demands Recovery Act, so jurisdiction to recover the amounts was absent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tax Recovery Officer had jurisdiction to demand and recover interest and costs in respect of dues arising under the repealed Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, after the recovery proceedings were taken over under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The saving provision in section 297(2)(j) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, protects sums recoverable under the repealed Act and actions already taken for recovery of such sums, but it does not extend to the disputed interest and costs claimed under section 16(a) of the Public Demands Recovery Act. Once the proceedings were taken over under the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tax Recovery Officer was bound by Schedule II of that Act, which contains no provision enabling recovery of interest and costs in the manner contemplated by the Public Demands Recovery Act. The record also did not establish that the officer acted as certificate officer under that Act.

Conclusion: The Tax Recovery Officer had no jurisdiction to recover the disputed interest and costs, and the objection to such recovery was rightly upheld.

---