Case: J.P. Jani, Income-Tax Officer, Circle Iv,Ward-G, Ahmedabad Vs. Induprasad Devshankar Bhatt

unless the terms of the statute expressly so provide or unless there is a necessary implication, retrospective operation should not be given to the statute so as to affect, alter or destroy any right already acquired or to revive any remedy already lost by efflux of time. On behalf of the appellants reference was made to the opening phrase "Where in respect of any assessment year after the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940" occurring in S. 297 (2) (d) (ii) of the new Act, but these general words cannot take in their sweep all assessment years subsequent to the year ending on 31st March, 1940 without regard to the question whether the right to re-open the assessment in respect of any assessment year was or was not barred under the repealed Act. We consider that the language of the new Section must be read as applicable only to those cases where the right of the Income Tax Officer to reopen the assessment was not barred under the repealed Section.In our view the new statute does not disclose in express terms or by necessary implication that there was a revival of the right of the Income Tax Officer to re-open an assessment which was already barred under the old Act. This view is borne out by the decision of this court in S. S. Gadgil v. Lal and Co., 1964-53 ITR 231 = (AIR 1965 SC 171 ). In that case, a notice was issued against the assessee as an agent of a non-resident on 27th March, 1957 and that notice related to the assessment year 1954-55. Under clause (iii) of the proviso to Section 34 (1) as it stood prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 1956, a notice of assessment or reassessment could not be issued against a person deemed to be an agent of a non-resident after the expiry of one year from the end of the year of assessment. The right to commence a proceeding for assessment against the assessee as agent of a non-resident for the assessment year 1954-55 therefore ended on 31st March, 1956 under the new Act before its amendment in 1956. This provision was, however, amended by the Finance Act, 1956 and under the amended provision the period of limitation was extended to two years from the end of the assessment year. The amendment was made on 8th September, 1958 but was given effect from 1st April, 1956. Since the time within which notice could be issued against a person deemed to be an agent of a non-resident was extended to two years from the end of the assessment year, it was contended on behalf of the Income Tax Officer that the notice issued by him was within the terms of the amended provision and was, therefore, a valid notice. Now the notice issued on 27th March, 1957 was clearly within a period of two years from the end of the assessment year 1954-55 and if the amended provision applied, the notice would be a valid notice. It was, however, held by this Court that notice was not a valid notice inasmuch as the right of the Income Tax Officer to re-open the assessment of the assessee under the unamended provision became barred on 31st March 1956 and the amended provision did not operate against him so as to authorise the Income Tax Officer to commence proceedings for re-opening the assessment of the assessee in a case where before the amended provision came into force, the proceedings had become barred under the unamended provision. At page 240 of the Report (ITR) = (at p. 177 of AIR), Shah, J. speaking or the Court observed as follows:-"As we have already pointed out, the right to commence a proceeding for assessment against the assessee as an agent of a non-resident party under the Income Tax Act before it was amended, ended on March 31, 1956. It is true that under the amending Act by Section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, authority was conferred upon the Income Tax Officer to assess a person as an agent of a foreign party under Section 43 within two years from the end of the year of assessment.But authority of the Income Tax Officer under the Act before it was amended by the Finance Act of 1956, having already come to an end the amending provision will not assist him to commence a proceeding even though at the date when he issued the notice it is within the period provided by that amending Act. This will be so, notwithstanding the fact that there has been no determinable point of time between the expiry of the time provided under the old Act and the commencement of the amending Act. The legislature has given to Section 18 of the Finance Act 1956, only a limited retrospective operation, i. e. up to April 1, 1956 only. That provision must be read subject to the rule that in the absence of an express provision or clear implication, the legislature does not intend to attribute to the amending provision a greater retrospectivity than is expressly mentioned, nor to authorise the Income Tax Officer to commence proceedings which before the new Act came into force had by the expiry of the period provided become barred".6. In our opinion, the principle of this decision applies in the present case and it must be held that on a proper construction of Section 297 (2) (d) (ii) of the new Act, the Income Tax Officer cannot issue a notice under Section 148 in order to re-open the assessment of an assessee in a case where the right to re-open the assessment was barred under the old Act at the date when the new Act came into force.It follows therefore that the notices dated 13-11-1963 and 9-1-1964 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad were illegal and ultra vires and were rightly quashed by the Gujarat High Court by the grant of a writ.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The High Court took the view that on a true construction of S. 297 (2) (d) (ii) of the new Act the Income Tax Officer could not issue a notice under Section 148 in order to reopen the assessment in a case where the right to reopen the assessment was barred under the old Act at the date when the new Act came into force. The High Court observed that the right of the Income Tax Officer to reopen the assessment of the respondent in the present case was admittedly barred under Section 34 (1) (a) of the old Act at the commencement of the new Act and it was, therefore, not competent to the Income Tax Officer to issue a notice under Section 148 of the new Act in order to reopen the assessment of the respondent and to re-assess the income of the respondent relying on the provisions enacted under Section 297 (2) (d) (ii) of the new Act. The High Court accordingly allowed the Special Civil Application preferred by the respondent and set aside the notices dated 13-11-1963 andour opinion, the argument put forward by Mr. Narasaraju is not warranted. It is admitted in this case that the right of the Income Tax Officer to re-open the assessment for the year 1947-48 was barred under the old Act before the new Act came into force.In our opinion it is not permissible to construe Section 297 (2) (d) (ii) of the Act as reviving the right of the Income Tax Officer to re-open the assessment which was already barred under the old Act. The reason is that such a construction of Section 297 (2) (d) (ii) would be tantamount to giving of retrospective operation to that Section which is not warranted either by the express language of the Section or by necessary implication. The principle is based on the well-known rule of interpretation that unless the terms of the statute expressly so provide or unless there is a necessary implication, retrospective operation should not be given to the statute so as to affect, alter or destroy any right already acquired or to revive any remedy already lost by efflux ofour view the new statute does not disclose in express terms or by necessary implication that there was a revival of the right of the Income Tax Officer to re-open an assessment which was already barred under the old Act.In our opinion, the principle of this decision applies in the present case and it must be held that on a proper construction of Section 297 (2) (d) (ii) of the new Act, the Income Tax Officer cannot issue a notice under Section 148 in order to re-open the assessment of an assessee in a case where the right to re-open the assessment was barred under the old Act at the date when the new Act came into force.It follows therefore that the notices dated 13-11-1963 and 9-1-1964 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad were illegal and ultra vires and were rightly quashed by the Gujarat High Court by the grant of a writ.