Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Ajay Rastogi, learned counsel for the assessee and Mr. S.K Sharan, for the revenue. 2. The following substantial questions of law have been referred by the Income Tax Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act: "I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that Rule 9B cannot be applied in Assessees case which is for Asstt. Year 1981-82 even after recording a finding that the assessment was completed on 2.3.90 i.e. after insertion of Rule 9B? II. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the learned C.I.T. (Appeal) has not considered the provisions of Rule 9B(7) although the restriction laid down by Rule 9B(7) has been stated by learned C.I.T. (Appeal) at page 6 of his order? III. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that Rule 9B of Income Tax Rules, 1962 is not retrospective in operation and that it will not apply to all pending proceedings?" 3. Before answering the reference, some facts would be necessary to notice. The petitioner assessee who was a subdistributor of films was assessed for the Assessment Years 1981-82 by the Assessing Officer. The assessment order was passed in the year 1988 calling upon the assessee to pay tax on total income of Rs. 67,413. The matter, however, went in appeal and it was remanded back to the assessing authorities by the appellate authority vide order dated 8.2.1989. The matter thereafter, was considered by the assessing authority and he came to a conclusion that in view of Rule 9B(7) of Income Tax Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), the matter cannot be reopened as the assessment for the assessment year 1981-82 was completed in the year 1990 itself. The matter, however, was taken by the assessee before the appellate forum. The appellate forum decided the matter in favour of the assessee holding that provision of Rule, 9B(7) of the Rules would apply in the pending cases as well and the matter therefore, requires fresh cosideration. 4. The matter, however, was taken by the assessee before the appellate forum. The appellate forum decided the matter in favour of the assessee holding that provision of Rule, 9B(7) of the Rules would apply in the pending cases as well and the matter therefore, requires fresh cosideration. 4. The revenue challenged the order before the Income Tax Tribunal on the plea that in view of the specific provision of Rule 9B(7) of the Rules, all the cases where assessment had commenced before the 1st April, 1987, the matter cannot be re-opened nor the provision of Rule 9B(7) of the Rules would apply to such pending cases. The Tribunal disposed of the matter in favour of the revenue holding that after insertion of sub-rule 7 of Rule 9B of the Rules, that would not apply in relation to assessment commenced before 1st April, 1987. 5. Admitted fact is that the assessee was assessed for the year 1981-82 and no proceeding relating to the same commenced after 1st April, 1987 inasmuch as the notices were already issued on 16.6.1984 and the same was replied on 7.7.1984 itself. The proceeding, in that view of the matter, was already concluded much before the 1st April, 1987. 6. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 9B of the Rules reads as under: "(7) Nothing contained in this rule shall apply in relation to any assessment year commencing before the 1st April, 1987." 7. This appears to be a non-obstante clause where emphasis has been made that nothing contained in this rule shall apply with regard to the assessment commenced before 1st April, 1987. 8. We do not find any provision in the rule to apply this provision retrospectively and per se, it appears from the enactment that the pending assessment matters before 1st April, 1987 would not be re-opened. In view of this non-obstante clause, the findings recorded by the Tribunal appears to be wholly in consonance with law. 9. Mr. Restogi, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, however, placed reliance, in support of his submission, upon the case of Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 189 ITR-70. 10. In view of this non-obstante clause, the findings recorded by the Tribunal appears to be wholly in consonance with law. 9. Mr. Restogi, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, however, placed reliance, in support of his submission, upon the case of Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 189 ITR-70. 10. The ratio laid down by this court in the case of Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores (supra) was not relating to the provisions of Rule 9B(7) of the Rules and, therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the specific provision of Rule 9B(7) of the Rules, this judgment would not apply in this case. 11. So far the reference made to this court is concerned, all the three questions are connected to each other and in view of the reasonings and findings aforesaid, the questions are answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. 12. This disposes of this tax case.