TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (2) TMI 28
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pinion : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amended provisions of section 43B were applicable to the assessment year 1984-85 when the said amendment was effective from April 1, 1988 ?" Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 683 of 1992 was got listed for today. The other miscellaneous civil cases were listed for today. On request of counsel for the applicant this miscellaneous civil case, entailing an identical question, is also taken up for consideration along with the other miscellaneous civil cases. The aforesaid question of law is sought to be supplemented and supported by the undernoted three common grounds contained in these applicatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....retrospectively. It, therefore, held that the amended provisions of section 43B were applicable to assessments for the assessment years prior to April 1, 1988. The decision of the Tribunal had rested on the order passed in I. T. A. No. 1151/Ind. of 1988 Mantri Brothers v. ITO. Aggrieved, the applicant/Revenue filed applications under section 256(1) of the Act. The applications were rejected. As the Tribunal declined to state the case and refer the question, and held that no referable question was in existence, the applicant filed these cases under section 256(2) of the Act. We have heard Shri D. D. Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant/Revenue, and counsel for the non-applicant/assessee in some of these cases. Counsel for the applic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h is actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date applicable in his case for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 in respect of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred as aforesaid and the evidence of such payment is furnished by the assessee along with such return." The core question is whether the Tribunal rightly applied the amended provision of the aforesaid section to the assessment years prior to April 1, 1988 ? The answer depends on as to whether the amendment is declaratory of pre-existing law or it affected vested rights of the parties ? In the case of the former, it can be deemed to be retrospective and in the case of the latter, it has to be construed as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f preexisting section 43B, effective from April 1, 1984, and did not affect vested rights. It is explanatory of the provision and is procedural in nature. That being so, there is no question of ignoring its effect on the linchpin of its introduction at a later date, i.e., from April 1, 1988. The object is to advance the remedy and curb the mischief. The dictionary meaning of the word "provided" is "on condition that", "on this term". The provision supplied periphery and purpose to the point. It thus explained as to how to read and apply section 43B. It has nothing to do with the "date". It variegated and vellicated like "egocentric conception". Luculently, it controls section 43B and cannot be treated as "insipia" till March 31, 1988. In ot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n though they were getting deductions by maintaining accounts on mercantile basis. This court had also taken the same view as is taken by the Tribunal in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 665 of 1992--CIT v. Dhiraj Kumar and Co., [1997] 226 ITR 443, decided on January 3, 1996, and Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 514 of 1992--CIT v. Shree Tea Co. [1997] 226 ITR 445 and several connected miscellaneous civil cases decided on January 17, 1996. Nothing substantial is urged to persuade us to take a different view in the matter. In our view, the Tribunal took the view sustainable in law. In face of the view we take and in the light of the decisions, cited in paras 14 and 16 above (see above ) with which we respectfully agree, Sagnhi Motors' case ....