2000 PLP 250 (PTD)

1976-77 435/II(I)/83-84 40.430 15,566 + int. 10. 1974-75 436/II(1)/83-84 11,784 4,555 + int. 11. 1973-74 437/II(1)/83-84 7,761 2,231 + int. 12. 1972-73 440/II(1)/83-84 5,696 2,196 + int. 13. 1970-71 442/II(1)/83-84 17,530 2,145 + int. 14. 1978-79 361 /II(1)/86-87 17,530 5,803.91 + int. In paragraph 10 of the application, the petitioner .has given some figures indicating payment of tax which is as under: "

10. That the trustee paid tax to the Tax Recovery Officer-IX W.T.):, For assess- ment year Date of payment Amount Rs. Total Rs. 1977-78 (i) 21-4-1987 (ii) 27-5-1987 25,000 4,500 29,000 1976-77 (i) 29-6-1980 (ii) 14-8-1987 6,000 8,000 14,000 1975-76 (i) 26-10-1987 8,000 8,000 1957-58 (i) 27-5-1987 1,759 1,759 1978-79 (i)19-12-1986 2,500 2,500 55,759" If we look into the above figures .they will clearly show that the petitioner has not furnished the complete facts regarding the demand raised of the tax payable from the year 1957 onwards, nor has the petitioner furnished the full facts regarding the wealth tax paid in all these years. The issue has been considered by this Court in the case of Saurashtra Agencies (Pvt.) Ltd. (1990) 186 ITR 634 whether the amendment by the insertion of subsection (2A) has a retrospective effect or not. This Court has taken the view that this amendment has no retrospective effect. Counsel for. the petitioner submits that whether the amendment has retrospective effect, if it is beneficial to the assessee, it always has retrospective effect. I am not inclined to accept the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the amendment has retrospective effect not only on the reasons given in the aforesaid decisions of this Court but even the Legislature has made its intention clear by giving the specific date from which this amendment will come into force, i.e., with effect from October 1, 1984. Therefore, there is no question to infer the contrary intention of the Legislature from the specific date given by the Legislature for giving effect to the amendment. Considering the aforesaid facts, it is not proper to direct the Commissioner to waive the interest not only on the ground that the amendment has no retrospective effect but even the petitioner has filed to satisfy that this case is covered and it fulfilled all the three c6nditiol's laid down in subsection (2A) of section 31 of the Act. Hence, I find no merit its the case of the petitioner on the ground of retrospective effect of amendment nor on the ground that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions laid down in subsection (2A) for waiver of interest. The petition is dismissed. M.B.A./4241/FC Petition dismissed.