ABDUL AZEEZ R Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two references have been made by the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, at the instance of the assessee and they have referred the following questions :

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts are as follows : The assessee is the same in both these references ; the assessment years are 1969-70 and 1970-71. The income-tax returns were filed by the assessee for the two years on September 10, 1969, and August 4, 1970, respectively. After the assessments were made, certain concealments were noticed and notices under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act"), were issued to the assessee. Reassessments were made on March 12, 1973. The concealment noticed for both the years exceeded a sum of Rs. 25,000. Hence, the ITO referred the matter to the IAC in view of the provisions of sub-s. (2) of s. 274 as it stood on the said date.

(3.) SRI S. R. Rajasekhara Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, on the contrary submitted that s. 6 of the General Clauses Act was applicable and, therefore, every proceeding before the AAC on a reference made by the ITO under the provisions of s. 271 r/w s. 274(2) of the Act as they stood before the amendment on April 1, 1976, were saved. Therefore, he submitted that only the IACs were competent to pass final orders in those proceedings. In support of this submission, he relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Shanti Misra (1977) 47 Comp Cas 453 ; AIR 1976 SC 237, Mohd. Idris vs. Sat Narain, AIR 1966 SC 1499, the judgment of this Court in W. P. No. 3143 of 1976, dated June 7, 1979 (Bangalore District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka (1981) 58 FJR 159) following the judgment of the Supreme Court in New India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), and a decision of the Bombay High Court in SRIpatrao Dajisaheb Ghatge vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 Bom 384 (FB). On the basis of the above decisions, he argued that it has been the consistent view taken by all the Courts that whenever there is repeal of law, unless the right of a party is taken away specifically, the proceedings instituted under the pre-existing law before the repeal can be continued before the same forum. Therefore, he submitted that in the present case also as the references had been made by the ITO before April 1, 1976, according to the provisions of the Act, as they stood at that point of time, it was competent for the IAC to proceed to pass final orders. He further submitted that there was nothing in the amending Act of 1975 which shows the intention of the Legislature not to save the power of the IAC which was available to him under sub-s. (2) of s. 274 of the Act before April 1, 1976. With reference to the submission made on behalf of the assessee that omission does not tantamount to repeal and, therefore, s. 6 of the General Clauses Act is not attracted, he relied on a decision of the Madras High Court in J. K. Angappan vs. ITO (1974) 94 ITR 397 (Mad), in which the Madras High Court had held that the observations in the judgment of the Supreme Court on the point should be confined to the facts of the said case.