K M SHARMA Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the notices under Ss. 148 and 142 of the IT Act issued to the petitioner relevant to the asst. yrs. 1968 -69 to 1971 -72, 1981 -82 and 1982 -83.

(2.) LANDS measuring about 4,200 bighas was acquired by the then Chief Commr. of Delhi by notification dt. 6th March, 1966 and 6th Sept., 1966, issued under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. By judgment dt. 20th May, 1980, the then Addl. District Judge held the petitioner to be entitled 1/32nd share of the compensation awarded under the awards. As a consequence thereof the petitioner received a compensation of Rs. 1,33,810. On a reference application filed by the petitioner under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act the Addl. District Judge, Delhi, by his judgment dt. 31st July, 1991, passed his award. Consequently, the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 1,10,20,624 which amount represented towards principal amount at Rs. 41,96,496 and interest at Rs. 76,84,829 upto 18th May, 1992. According to the petitioner no tax is leviable on interest accruing upto 31st March, 1982, as it had become time barred. However, on 31st March, 1993, the petitioner was served with notices under S. 148 of the INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 for 16 assessment years i.e., for the asst. yrs. 1968 -69 to 1971 -72 and asst. yrs. 1981 -82 to 1992 -93 asking the petitioner to file return of income for these years.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before us that the provisions of s. 150(1) of the Act are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as the said provision does not confer any fresh power on the ITO to make assessment in respect of the escaped income without any time limit and particularly in respect of those assessment years which had become time barred. The learned counsel relied upon the provisions of Sub -S. (2) of s. 150 and submitted that in view of the said provisions, the provisions of Sub -S. (1) of S. 150 shall not apply where by virtue of any other provision limiting the time within which the action for assessment, reassessment or recomputation might be taken, such assessment, reassessment or recomputation was barred on the date of the order which is the subject matter of appeal, reference or revision. In support of his submissions the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in S.S. Gadgil vs. Lal & Co. (1965) 53 ITR 231 (SC) : TC 11R.614, J.P. Jani, ITO vs. Indu Pershad Devshankar Bhatt (1969) 72 ITR 595 (SC) and S.C. Parashar & Ors. vs. Vasant Sen Dwarka Dass & Ors. (1963) 49 ITR 1 (SC). The learned counsel further relied upon the Department's Circular No. 549, dt. 31st Oct., 1989 [printed at (1990) 82 CTR (St) 1] and submitted that the amendments which came into force on 1st April, 1989, including the amendments in S. 150 would apply to all matters which were pending on 1st April, 1989, and had not become closed or dead on that date. According to him in view of the clauses of the said circular on 31st March, 1994, no notices could have been issued by the respondents for the years prior to the asst. year 1983 -84.