Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1127 (MAD)

N. Mahalingam v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax

2001-09-25

A.SUBBULAKSHMY, R.JAYASIMHA BABU

body2001
Judgment :- R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. The assessment years are 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82. The assessee's grievance, which resulted in the reference is regarding the revision of the assessment order, which had been passed on January 25, 1983. The revisional order had been passed on March 25, 1985. The assessee contends that the revisional order is one, which should not have been made having regard to the circular, which the Central Board of Direct Taxes had issued on the 1st day of November, 1984. That circular reads thus (see 1985 151 ITR(St) 46) : "Circular No. 402, dated November 1, 1984. Subject : Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Amendment of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Clarification regarding. As a consequence of the amendment of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by section 47 of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, the limitation for passing an order under section 263 will, in view of general principles of interpretation of statutes, stand extended in cases where the period of limitation originally laid down in that section had not expired before 1st October, 1984. However, with a view to avoiding controversy and litigation in the matter, it is desirable that orders under section 263 of the Income-tax Act are passed, as far as possible, within two years of the date of the order sought to be revised in cases where the order sought to be revised was passed before 1st October, 1984." The learned senior standing counsel for the Department has informed us that the Department has consistently followed the circular. No reason has been stated as to why that circular was disregarded in the instant case. The assessee herein is as much entitled to the benefit of the circular as any other assessee similarly placed. That circular being one which is beneficial to the assessee, is also binding on the Department and the stand taken by the Department inconsistent with the circular cannot be sustained.The question (1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the exercise of the powers by the Commissioners of Income-tax under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for each of the assessment years 1979-80 to 1981-82 was within the period of limitation ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the exercise of the powers by the Commissioners of Income-tax under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for each of the assessment years 1979-80 to 1981-82 was within the period of limitation ? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in rejecting the contention of the applicant that the amendment made by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, to the provisions of section 25(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, subsequent to the completion of the assessment, could not enhance the limitation period of revision beyond two years from the date of assessment, as the law applicable would be that which was in existence in the assessment year ? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal ought not to have held that the original orders, as regards the nature of the land in T.S. No. 11 at Pollachi, had not been established to be erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue, by the Commissioner of Income-tax as his direction to the officer would show ?) referred to us regarding the illegality of the revision made by the Commissioner in exercise of his power under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, revising the assessment, which had been made on January 25, 1983, prior to the date of amendment of section 263 by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, is, therefore, answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.