SAIT NAGJEE PURSHOTHAM AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER THIRD ADDL
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SAIT NAGJEE PURUSHOTHAM AND CO. (P.) LTD.
THIRD ADDITIONAL INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CALICUT.
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)In all these writ petitions, Mr. K. V. Surianarayana Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner, who is the same, challenges the orders passed by the 3rd Additional Income Tax Officer, Kozhikode, dated 21st February 1961 under S.35(10) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.
(2.)The short contention that has been raised before me by Mr. Surianarayana Iyer, in all these matters is that the provisions contained in S.35(10) were enacted as and by way of a temporary measure and that on the date when these orders, under attack, were passed by the concerned Officer, S.35(10) had teased to be in force, and, therefore, there was no jurisdiction in the officer concerned either to initiate proceedings under S.35(10) or to pass any orders under S.35(10). S.35(1) being, according to the learned counsel, a temporary measure, the provisions of S.6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, have no application.
(3.)On the other hand, the contention of Mr. G. Rama Iyer, learned counsel for the revenue, is that notwithstanding the fact that S.35(10) had ceased to be in force when the notices for reassessment, were issued and when the orders under attack were passed, there is jurisdiction in the officer to pass the orders in question, by virtue of the provisions contained in S.6 of the General Clauses Act. According to the learned counsel, the principles applicable to the expiry of a temporary enactment have no application to the statute in question. Therefore, it will be seen that a decision on this question will really depend upon the view that is taken by this Court as to whether S.35(10) of the Indian Income Tax Act is temporary enactment or not.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.