Cases already settled cannot be reopened on the basis of Retrospective Amendment

By TG Team Income Tax Featured , Judiciary October 11, 2012

TaxGuru Citation: 2012 taxguru.in 1435
Case Name: J.B. Roy (Jay Brata Roy) Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Allahabad High Court)
Appeal Number: Only available for paid members
Date of Judgement/Order: Only available for paid members
Courts: All High Courts, Allahabad High Court

In the instant case, the amendment under Section 260A (2A) has been introduced retrospectively w.e.f. 01.10.1998 by the Finance Act, 2010. But fact remains that the cases already settled before the said amendment cannot be re-opened, as per the ratio laid down in the case of Babu Ram v. C. C. Jacob and others; AIR (1999) SC 1845, where it was observed that the prospective declaration of law is a devise innovated by the apex court to avoid reopening of settled issues and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. It is also a devise adopted to avoid uncertainty and avoidable litigation. By the very object of prospective declaration o3f law, it is deemed that all actions taken contrary to the declaration of law prior to its date of declaration are validated. This is done in the larger public interest. In matters, where decisions opposed to the said principle have been taken prior to such declaration of law cannot be interfered with on the basis of such declaration of law.

Allahabad High Court

REVIEW PETITION DEFECTIVE No. – 10 of 2011

(Income Tax Appeal No.127 of 2006)

J.B. Roy (Jay Brata Roy)

Versus

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma,J. Hon’ble Dr. Satish Chandra,J.