Retrospective removal-of-difficulties orders upheld, preserving revisional jurisdiction under the repealed income-tax framework.

Section 298 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was treated as authorising retrospective removal-of-difficulties orders, so proceedings initiated after repeal of the 1922 Act could be deemed proceedings under that Act and the Commissioner's jurisdiction under section 33B was upheld. The procedural challenge also failed because adequate prior notice had been given, no effective request for adjournment on grounds of insufficient time was shown, and no actual prejudice was established. The objection to the direction affecting the partners' assessments was held to be a matter, if at all, for the partners themselves and not for the firm in the appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax was competent to initiate proceedings under section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and pass an order under that provision notwithstanding the repeal of the 1922 Act; (ii) Whether the order under section 33B was invalid for want of adequate opportunity or because it directed modification of the partners' assessments.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax was competent to initiate proceedings under section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and pass an order under that provision notwithstanding the repeal of the 1922 Act.

Analysis: The proceedings were treated as saved by section 297(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the removal of difficulties order made under section 298 was relied upon to deem proceedings instituted after 31 March 1962 and before 8 August 1962 as proceedings under the 1922 Act. The challenge to the retrospective operation of the order failed because section 298 was held to authorise orders designed to remove existing or apprehended difficulties, including those operating retrospectively.

Conclusion: The Commissioner was competent to proceed under section 33B and his jurisdiction was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the order under section 33B was invalid for want of adequate opportunity or because it directed modification of the partners' assessments.

Analysis: The adequacy of opportunity was tested on the basis of prejudice. The assessee had prior notice of the proposed revisional action, no effective request for adjournment on the ground of insufficient time was shown, and no prejudice was established. As to the direction affecting the partners' assessments, the grievance was held to lie, if at all, with the partners and not with the firm in the appeal before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The order was held to be valid and proper, and the objection to the direction concerning the partners failed.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the Revenue and the Commissioner's revisional order was sustained in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 298 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 authorises retrospective orders removing difficulties in giving effect to the Act, and a challenge based on procedural unfairness must fail unless actual prejudice from lack of opportunity is shown.

---