TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (9) TMI 237
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssued under the Land Acquisition Act in 1973. The Collector allowed compensation to the assessees @ Rs. 556 per marla which was enhanced by the District Judge, Kapurthala, to Rs. 850 per marla. On further appeal by the co-owners, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court vide its decision dt. 12th July, 1988 allowed compensation @ Rs. 1800 per marla. In addition to enhancement in compensation, the High Court also allowed salacium @ 30 per cent and interest from the date of acquisition till the payment @ 9 per cent p.a. for first year and 15 per cent for the later years. The State Government challenged the aforesaid order of the High Court before the Supreme Court in Civil Misc. Petn. No. 9894-95 of 1989 which was dismissed on 31st July, 1989.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-81 31,620 1981-82 31,620 1982-83 31,620 6. The assessee challenged the above assessment in appeal before the CIT(A) and contended that notices issued were illegal and barred by time. It was further contended that no reasons were recorded before issuing notice under s. 148. Amendment of sub-s. (1) of s. 150 adding words 'any other law or by Court in any proceeding under any other law' w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, cannot extend period of limitation which stood already expired. In other words, the assessee contended that the order enhancing the compensation and allowing interest was passed by Punjab & Haryana High Court on 12th July, 1988 i.e., much before the amendment came into force. The amended provisions were not applicable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....989, held that notices issued under s. 148 were barred by time. The Revenue could not take the benefit of amended provisions of s. 150(1) made w.e.f. 1st April, 1989 as period of limitation had expired before the aforesaid date. The Bench observed as under: "I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the material available on record. It is an admitted position that the land of the assessee was acquired as per Notification dt. 25th Feb., 1973 and the enhanced compensation was received by an order of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court dt. 12th July, 1988. The compensation along with interest thereon was received from September, 1989 to March, 1990. The case of the Department is that the order of the Hon'ble High Court wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passed by the High Court the amended provisions had not come into force. Therefore, the time had also expired for issuance of notices under s. 148 by 31st March, 1989. The amended provisions came into force w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, which could not revive the time already expired. Therefore, in view of this the issuance of notices and consequently the reopening of the assessments is invalid in law. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Gadgil vs. Lal & Co. where it was observed as under : But the authority of the ITO under the Act before it was amended by the Finance Act, 1956, having already come to an end, the amending provisions will not assist him to compence a proceedings even though at the date when he ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of those notices are quashed. Since, I have held the proceedings as barred by limitation and consequently quashed the reassessments, therefore, the additions made to the income and interest charged becomes null and void. Similarly, the Departmental appeals with regard to penalties under s. 271(1)(a) also become infructuous as the issuance of notices under s. 148 had itself become barred by limitation." 9. Similar orders were passed in the case of other co-owners namely, Shri Satya Swami, on 3rd Aug., 1995, and others. 10. The Revenue moved R.A. against the aforesaid order (R.A. No. 267, 628 to 635 of 1990) but the same were rejected by the Tribunal Amritsar Bench vide its order dt. 2nd Jan., 1996. The Revenue then moved petition und....