SRINIVASALU M Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE validity of Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been challenged in this petition as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Section 148 refers to the escaped assessment and earlier the notice could have been served upon the assessee requiring him to furnish the return in not less than 30 days as may be specified in the notice. THE words "not being less than 30 days" were deemed to be omitted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996, with effect from April 1, 1989. This court in the case of Winter Care Pvt. Ltd. W. P. No. 33832 of 1992 DD 15-2-1993, held that the. assessee has to be allowed a minimum period of 30 days and the notice calling for filing of the returns within 30 days is, not in conformity with the provisions of Section 148. THE assessee was issued a notice under Section 148 on November 25, 1991, requiring him to furnish the return of income within 30 days of service of notice. Assessment was also framed which was challenged in appeal. THE Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide order dated May 27, 1996, held that the proceedings are vitiated because the time as contemplated by Section 148 was not given in the notice. Subsequently, vide order dated April 30, 1997, it was found that the words "not being less than 30 days" in Section 148 were omitted by the retrospective amendment with effect from April 1, 1989, therefore, the order passed on May 27, 1996, has become erroneous. THE said order was cancelled by invoking the power under Section 154(2)(b). THE submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the power exercised to amend the law retrospectively was not fair or reasonable and that now the assessing authorities are left with no guidelines.

(2.) ARGUMENTS of learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Parliament has the power to enact the law which may be prospective or retrospective. It is only the unreasonableness which could be examined when a retrospective amendment of law is challenged. If such retrospective amendment is violative of any other provision of the Constitution that would also be considered. The memorandum explaining the provisions as attached to the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1996, are as under (see [1996] 220 ITR (St.) 269) :

(3.) PETITION having no force is accordingly dismissed.