TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (1) TMI 103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section 148, requiring the assessee to file a return within 30 days of the receipt of the same, was invalid? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the reassessments made for these years were invalid in law because of the defective notice? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the value of 18.621 kgs. of gold, brought by K.V. Jayaprakash into the firm, did not constitute stock-in-trade of the assessee-firm?" The brief facts of the case are as hereunder: The assessee is a firm by name Rajatha Jewellers, hereinafter referred to as "firm" which is carrying on business in jewellery. One Sri K.V. Jayaprakash ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessment year 1985-86 as per the guidelines given by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench and the said omission on the part of the assessee has resulted in escape of income for the assessment year 1985-86. In the light of the aforesaid conclusion a demand was issued for payment of the tax for the escaped assessment as mentioned in the said order. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the statement of the said Jayaprakash that it was not brought as capital was not correct, and the amount was not credited to his capital account. On the other hand it was credited as sundry creditors in the name of Sri K.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herefore, the Tribunal was of the view that all the primary facts were available with the Assessing Officer before passing the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act and the reassessment, due to change of opinion on the same set of facts is impermissible. The Tribunal further held that the notice issued under section 148 did not provide for clear 30 days time and was contrary to the judgment of this court in the case of Winter Care Private Limited (W.P. No. 32832 of 1992). Therefore, the notice was bad in law and the consequential reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of the said notice was liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it set aside the two orders passed by the authorities and held that there was no case for the R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded provision. Section 148 before amendment reads as under: "148. Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment.- (1) Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, not being less than thirty days, as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant assessment year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed; and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The general rule that an Act of Parliament is not to be given retrospective effect applies only to statutes which affect vested rights. It does not apply to statutes which only alter the form of procedure. If an amendment is brought to a procedural law, the amended provision applies to all actions pending as well as future. No person has a vested right in any course of procedure. He has only the right of prosecution or defence in the manner prescribed for the time being by or for the court in which the case is pending. If by an Act of Parliament the mode of procedure is altered he has no other right than to proceed in accordance with the altered mode. The Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996, expressly gave retrospective effect to the amended provisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ission. Though learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to support the aforesaid two orders, on the facts he is unable to dispute that in the excise register the impugned gold was shown as the stock of the firm. While giving the valuation of closing stock, the value of this stock was also taken into consideration and in the returns filed the closing stock was shown including this stock. In fact in the returns filed for the assessment year 1986-87 and subsequent years, the said gold is shown as the capital account of the said partner K.V. Jayaprakash. Therefore, from these undisputed facts it is clear that the said value of the stock was not taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing and on that basis no income-tax was ....