RANCHI HANDLOOM EMPORIUM Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of the notice dated March 20, 1992, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). A copy of the impugned notice has been marked annexure-3 to the writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner is a registered firm carrying on wholesale business in cloth. For the accounting year July 9, 1986, to June 27, 1987, relevant to the assessment year 1988-89, it submitted the return of its income showing a total income of Rs. 95,670 on July 27, 1988. Along with the return it filed a statement showing computation of total income, audited trading, profit and loss account, balance-sheet and the tax audit report in the prescribed form as well as details of the loan accounts verified and confirmed by the concerned creditors. THE return was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Special Range, Ranchi, respondent No. 2, after scrutiny and the assessment order was passed on November 17, 1989. On March 31, 1992, however, the impugned notice, dated March 20, 1992, under Section 148 of the Act was served on the petitioner alleging that respondent No. 2 had reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 and he proposed to reassess the same and, accordingly, requiring the petitioner to submit the return in the prescribed form within 30 days of the service of notice. THE petitioner made an application requesting respondent No. 2 to furnish the reasons leading to formation of his opinion within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act and, later, also requested him to treat the original return filed on July 27, 1988, as the return (under protest) in compliance with the impugned notice under Section 148 and, ultimately, getting no response from the respondent, filed the present writ petition in this court.

(3.) THE submission that the present case will be governed by the amended provisions of Section 147 of the Act is completely misconceived. Having regard to the fact that the amended provisions, as substituted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, came into force from April 1, 1989, and the present case relates to the assessment year 1988-89, the relevant accounting year being July 9, 1986, to June 27, 1987, I have no doubt in my mind that it would be the unamended provisions which would govern the case. If a particular act does not constitute any offence or does not involve any consequence, the person committing' such act cannot be held liable if the same very act becomes an offence and liable to penal consequence by virtue of some subsequent law. He cannot be punished for committing that act merely because some penalty is prescribed later for the same.