Satish Chandra, C.J.

1. THE assessee filed returns of income on 27th August, 1968, for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1968-69. On 14th August, 1969, he filed revised returns for all the aforesaid years, except for the year 1966-67. The income in the original as well as in the revised returns was as follows:

Year Original return Revised return

Rs. Rs.

1964-65 9,304 14,304

1965-66 9,913 14,932

1966-67 8,903 15,403

1967-68 17,715 20,715

1968-69 22,397 24,397

2. THE ITO accepted the revised returns and passed the assessment orders on different dates of August, 1969, except for the year 1966-67, for which the assessment was completed on an income of Rs. 16,903. In the assessment orders he recorded a finding that the assessee filed returns late and that he had not filed estimate of income under Section 212(3) of the I.T. Act. Hence, proceedings for levying the penalty were initiated.

In due course a notice was issued to show cause why penalty under Sections 271(1)(a) and 273(b) of the Act be not imposed. The assessee made an application to the CIT under Section 271(4A) of the Act praying that the imposable penalty be waived or reduced.

3. THE assessee thereafter applied for adjournment of penalty proceedings on the ground that he had made an application before the Commissioner for waiving or Reducing the imposable penalty. The proceedings were adjourned on February 18, 1972 and March 20, 1972, on which date March 24, 1972, was fixed. On this date, i.e., March 24, 1972, the assessee again made an application for adjournment, but the same was rejected and the penalty orders were passed on the same day. The ITO imposed penalty in different amounts for late filing of the returns as well as for not filing the estimate of income totalling Rs, 5,239 in all, for all the five years.

4. THE assessee went up in appeal and then to the Tribunal, but failed.

At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for our opinion :

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amended provisions of Section 275 were applicable and the orders passed by the Income-tax Officer on 24th March, 1972, were, therefore, not barred by limitation ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was liable to penalty under Sections 271(1)(a) and 273(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?"

5. ON the first question the position is well settled. Section 275, which lays down the period of limitation for initiating penalty proceedings, was amended with effect from 1st April, 1971, by the Taxation Laws (Amend.) Act, 1970. Previously, the limitation was two years commencing from the date of the assessment order. After the amendment, the limitation was changed to two years commencing from the end of the financial year in which the assessment order was passed.

6. IN the present case, assessment orders were passed in August, 1969. Therefore, if the amendment was applicable, the period of limitation commenced from 1st April, 1970, and continued till 3Ist March, 1972.

The prescription of period of limitation is a matter of procedure. Any amendment in this regard is retrospective in the sense it is applicable to all those matters which are pending and which had not become closed or dead. If in a particular proceeding the period of limitation on 1st April, 1971, was still running, the amended provision enlarging the period of limitation would apply. This is the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka and Orissa High Courts in Addl. CIT v. Watan Mechanical and Turning Works [1977] 107 ITR 743 (AP) [FB], CIT v. Royal Motor Car Co. [1977] 107 ITR 753 (Guj), CIT v. M. Nagappa [1978] 114 ITR 707 (Kar), CIT v. Soubhagya Manjari Devi [1976] 105 ITR 82 (Orissa) and CIT v. Bhikari Charan Panda [1976] 104 ITR 73 (Orissa). We are in respectful agreement with these auth