https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36346 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. en-us Mon, 10 Nov 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:05:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36346 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 10 Nov 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36346