TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (7) TMI 10
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the subsequent notices dated January 31, 1978, March 10, 1978, March 11, 1978 and April 15, 1978, issued by the Valuation Officer in connection with the valuation of the assets of the petitioner. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. B. Upadhyaya, and Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned standing counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is a public religious and charitable trust. Its case is that it is exempt from income-tax by virtue of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and also from wealth-tax by virtue of section 5 of the Wealth-tax Act. For the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 proceedings were initiated to assess the income of the assessee under the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edings for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74, the Income-tax Officer had taken the view that the assessee had violated the provisions of section 13 of the Income-tax Act and was, therefore, not entitled to exemption under section 11. Section 21A was enacted in the Wealth-tax Act with effect from April 1, 1973, containing provisions parallel to section 13 of the Income-tax Act and providing the circumstances in which the wealth held under trust for any public purpose of a charitable or religious nature may become liable to wealth-tax. The impugned notice under section 17 of the Act was issued by the Wealth-tax Officer after recording his reasons which were produced before us at the hearing. The reasons stated that " as per finding rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment of assets of the trust to wealth-tax could be validly initiated. We, therefore, find that the impugned notice under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act was validly issued. What was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, however, was that subsequently the Income-tax Tribunal reversed the findings of the Income-tax Officer on the aforesaid points and held that the income of the petitioner was not liable to tax as it had not violated the provisions of section 13 of the Income-tax Act and the findings of the Tribunal have been upheld by this court, vide its judgment, dated April 9, 1991, in Income-tax Reference No. 229 of 1981--CIT v. J. K Charitable Trutst [1992] 196 ITR 31. According to learned, counsel for the petitioner, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stood to be that development rebate was not available on the parts of machinery and it was for this reason that a notice under section 148 was issued to make a reassessment withdrawing the development rebate. Subsequently, the Supreme Court held that development rebate was admissible on the parts of machinery. The judgment of the Supreme Court was pronounced within a month of the issue of the notice by the Income-tax Officer. A question arose whether the notice issued by the Income-tax Officer under section 148 stood invalidated because of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court. It was held that a judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be placed on the same footing as a retrospective piece of legislation and it cannot, therefore, be sai....