TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 173
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said to be still pending. Notice dated September 17, 2008, was issued under section 143(2) of the Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar, to which the petitioner filed his objection on October 20, 2008, on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. Thereafter, he was served with a notice along with a questionnaire calling for further information, which was followed by notice dated November 24, 2009, by the Director of Income-tax (International Taxation), Chandigarh. 4. The contention raised in the writ petition is that, vide notification dated September 28, 2007, under section 120 of the Act, the Central Board of Direct Taxes authorized the officers specified therein to exercise powers of Assessing Officers and other authorities. In spite of the said notification, power has been exercised by respondent No. 2, i.e., Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation). It is submitted that notice under sec-tion 143(2) of the Act issued by respondent No. 2 was barred by limitation and that the authority at Jalandhar had no jurisdiction to issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act after issuance of notification dated September 28, 2007. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and limitation for issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act was up to July 31, 2008. However, by virtue of amendment by the Finance Act, 2008, with effect from April 1, 2008, limitation stood extended up to six months from the end of the financial year in which the return was furnished, i.e., up to September 30 2008. 10. It is well settled that a statute of limitation is a procedural statute and is applicable to pending proceedings. However, limitation law is prospective as it does not revive an action which may have become time barred on the date of enforcement of the changed law nor the changed law extinguishes a subsequent cause of action. The position of law has been summed up in Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G. P. Singh, tenth edition : ". . . Statutes of limitation are thus retrospective in so far as they apply to all legal proceedings brought after their operation for enforcing causes of action accrued earlier, but they are prospective in the sense that they neither have the effect of reviving a right of action which is already barred on the date of their coming into operation, nor do they have the effect of extinguishing a ri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h had the effect of transferring jurisdiction to the corresponding authorities in place of original authorities exercising territorial jurisdiction. In spite of this, order under section 143(1) of the Act was passed by the original authority on February 7, 2008, to which no objection on account of lack of jurisdiction has till date been raised by the assessee. Application under section 154 of the Act was filed on April 2, 2008, by the petitioner at Jalandhar itself pointing out errors in the order of assessment on the merits. In these circumstances, even though the order under section 143(1) of the Act was after notification dated September 28, 2007, under section 120 of the Act, the said order cannot be held to be nullity. It is well settled that objection as to territorial jurisdiction has to be raised at the earliest and is otherwise deemed to have been waived. On the same analogy, notice under section 143(2) cannot be held to be void for want of jurisdiction. Reference may be made not only to section 21 of the Code of Civil Proce-dure but also to section 124(3) of the Act. In the objection raised by the petitioner, annexure P-5, the only plea raised was that the notice was beyo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he merits. The contention of the appellants, therefore, that the decree and judgment of the District Court, Monghyr, should be treated as a nullity cannot be sustained under section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act." 16. The same view has been taken by the hon'ble Supreme Court in Green-world Corporation [2009] 314 ITR 81 (SC). Referring to the earlier judg-ment in Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [2009] 2 SCC 244, in paragraph 63, it was observed (page 116) : "In Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [2008] 16 Scale 197, this court held : 'The Tribunal is a court subordinate to the High Court. An appeal against the Tribunal lies before the High Court. The High Court, while exercising its appellate power, would follow the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure or akin thereto. In view of sub-section (1) of section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was, therefore, obligatory on the part of the appellate court to pose unto itself the right question, viz., whether the first respondent has been able to show sufferance of any prejudice. If it has not suffered any or otherwise no failure of justice had occurred, the High Court should ....