TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 616
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 3. In this assessee's appeal, the assessee has raised following ground of appeal :- "1. FOR THAT the impugned Appellate Order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the Ld.income Tax (Appeals) - XXXIII, which has been received by the appellant 01.01.2010 is contrary to law and perverse. II. FOR THAT the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - XXXIII has failed to determine whether Income Tax can be levied twice upon a same income, being income on account of winning of Sikkim Lottery, once under Sikim Income Tax Rules, 1948 and again under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 especially in the situation where Sikim is a state of India. III. FOR THAT the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - XXXIII has failed to appreciate that the Assessing officer e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee had filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year on 2-8-07. It was submitted that the notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on the assessee on 18-09-08. These two dates remain undisputed. It was the submission that in view of the proviso to section 143(2) Act as it stood at the time of filing of return of income on 2-8-07, the limitation for issuance of the notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act expired on 31-8-08. It was the submission that as the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 18- 09-2008, the same was beyond the period of limitation and consequently, the notice u/s. 143(2) was invalid, the consequential assessment order was liable to be annulled as also notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act. He further submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Income-tax (Appeals) in paras 7-9 of his order. It was the submission that ground no.3 in the grounds of appeal was related to the additional ground as filed before us. 8. In reply, the learned CIT/DR submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Single Judge in the case of Gangadhar Bera (refer to supra) had no applicability in the assessee's case. It was the submission that no law has been laid down in the said decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of Gangadhar Bera (refer to supra). It was further submitted that the provisions of section 143(2) were procedural in nature and the amendment to the proviso of section 143(2) being a procedural section admittedly was applicable from the date from which, it has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovision. It was also submitted that the assessee being non-Sikkimese was resident in India. It was submitted that the assessee admittedly is a resident of India and non resident of Sikkim. Since the assessee was not resident within the territories comprised in the of State of Sikkim, the provision of section 10(26AAA) was not applicable to him and income from winning of lottery in Sikkim was liable to tax under the provisions of Indian Income-tax Act, 1961. It was the submission that this was laid down by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmala Mehta Vs. CIT reported in 269 ITR 1(Bom), which was also relied upon by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It was the submission that consequently the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s case i.e. on 1-4-08 the Assessing Officer had time to issue notice u/s. 143(2). This period of limitation has been extended by the amendment to the proviso of section 143(2) of the Act. Admittedly, the provisions of section 143(2) of the Act are procedural in nature. Any amendment to a procedural provision takes effect from the date on which it is made effective by the legislature. In the present case that date has been specified as on 1-4-08. Consequently, we are of the view when the notice u/s. 143(2) was issued, the law as stood would have to be made applicable and the Assessing Officer did have jurisdiction to issue notice u/s. 143(2) on 18-9-08 in so far as the limitation expired only on 30-9-08. 11. Coming to the decision of the H....