1979 (2) TMI 119

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....73 and the assessment was completed on 13th Sept., 1976. In the meantime, i.e. on 1st Jan., 1976, the provisions of s. 144B, as reproduced below, found their way to the Statute Book: "144B(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where, in an assessment to be made under sub s. (3) of s.143, the ITO proposes to make any variation in the income or loss returned which is prejudicial to the assessee and the amount of such variation exceeds the amount fixed by the Board under sub-s.(6) the ITO shall, in the first instance, forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment (hereafter in this section referred to as the draft order)to the assessee. (2) On receipt of the draft order, the assessee may forward his objections, if any ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ll apply to a case where an IAC exercises the powers or performs the functions of an ITO in pursuance of an order made under s. 125 or s. 125A." In view of the above provisions having come into effect when the proceedings were pending before the ITO, the ITO abided by those provisions an dissociated the IAC with the completion of the assessment proceedings since the period of limitation was extended further in view of the Expln. 1 to s. 153. As the assessment was completed on 13th Sept.,1976, the assessee challenged the validity of the action on the ground that s. 144B was a jurisdictional section involving substantive rights of the assessee and was not, therefore, retrospective in nature. It was, therefore, argued before the AAC that re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by both the sides. We find that s. 144B is part of the procedural sections and finds a place in Chapter XIV covering "Procedure for Assessment". Apart form this s. 144B cannot be held to operate to the detriment of the assessee as the assessee is given a further opportunity of placing his point before the IAC who is expected to deal with the matter in a more satisfactory manner from the point of view of justice and fairplay. We do not, therefore, consider the provisions of s. 144B to be of a substantive nature having no retrospective effect. We may further point out that, as against the Madras High Court decision relied upon by the assessee, we have the decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of Dhadi Sahu(2), wherein it has been hel....