TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1975 (9) TMI 29
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Amendment Act with effect from April 1, 1971 ? (2) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had not jurisdiction tinder section 274(2) of the Act, in view of its amendment by the abovesaid Amendment Act, 1970, was erroneous in law ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner ? " The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : The relevant assessment year is 1968-69. At the time of passing the assessment order, the Income-tax Officer had held that a cash credit of Rs. 3,100 was not established by the assessee and hence it was added to the income of the assessee. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assistant Commissioner passed the order of penalty on October 12, 1971, levying a penalty of Rs. 6,810. Against the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner the assessee, which is a registered firm, went in appeal to the Tribunal and the Tribunal held that if the Amendment Act of 1970 were to apply, then the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to hear the case and if the Amendment Act were not to apply, then the order of penalty was barred by limitation. Under these circumstances the, appeal filed by the assessee-firm was allowed and thereafter, at the instance of the revenue, the above-mentioned three questions have been referred to us. Before the Amendment Act of 1970 which came into force with effect from April....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ancial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed. If the period of limitation under the new section is to apply, then it is obvious that the financial year in which the order was passed by the Income-tax Officer and the penalty proceedings were initiated was the financial year 1969-70. That financial year was expiring on March 31, 1970, and hence the period of limitation would expire on March 31, 1972. In the instant case, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had passed the order of penalty on October 12, 1971, and, therefore, if the new section is to apply, then the order of penalty would be within time. It is well-settled law that as regards matters of procedu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... apply to pending proceedings as well. Under these circumstances, at least on one out of the two alternatives, the position is very clear, namely, that the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, was within limitation. As regards the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to pass the order of assessment in view of the amendment in section 274 by the Amendment Act, it is well-settled law that every litigant has a vested right in the procedural law so far as substance is concerned and if the substantive question of jurisdiction is to be affected by a new amendment the legislature must say so either in express terms or by necessary implication. Since the decision of the Privy Council in Colonial Sugar Refining Company....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r by implication has indicated that the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner even in pending matters, that is, matters which were already referred to him, was to be affected. Since there is no such clear indication nor necessary implication affecting the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in pending matters it follows that the jurisdiction which the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had under the unamended section 274 continued in the instant case and, therefore, he had jurisdiction to dispose of the penalty proceedings against the assessee-firm. Under these circumstances the conclusion of the Tribunal that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the order of penalty in the insta....