V.V. Kamat, J.
1. In all these three revision cases under Section 41 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991, we are to answer the following four questions :
” 1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in admitting appeal to its file as per the provisions of Section 99(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991, and directing the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to dispose of the appeal filed against an order passed under Section 18(4) of the Act of 1950 and in directing the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to dispose of the appeal on merits ?
2. Will a second appeal lie at all when there is no provision to file a first appeal ?
3. Should not have the Tribunal applied Sub-section (4) of Section 99 in spite of Sub-section (1) of that section ?
4. Is the reasoning, finding and conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal justified in law ?”
2. Reading the questions we have to see as to whether Income-tax Appeals Nos. 73, 74 and 75 of 1991, presented before the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal were properly entertained, admitted and disposed of as such.
3. The question arises under the above circumstances. On the roll of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Trichur, Mrs. E. J. Rosy is the assesses, the present respondent. These proceedings relate to the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89. The assessee, under Section 18(4) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, came to be assessed with the aid of best judgment assessment by a common order dated November 3, 1990.
4. The assessee preferred appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Trichur. These appeals came to be rejected by a common order dated May 31, 1991, holding that these appeals are not maintainable.
5. It is against this common order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Trichur, the Tribunal was approached and by the impugned order dated January 28, 1992, the Tribunal allowed the said appeals directing the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to dispose of them in accordance with the provisions of Section 72 of the subsequent Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991.
6. The Tribunal took the view that the orders rejecting the appeals passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were passed after the enactment of the new Agricultural Income tax Act, 1991. It is observed that the said appeals were filed on December 28, 1990, and came to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability by the common order dated May 31, 1991, holding that in respect of an order under Section 18(4) of the repealed Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, there is no provision for appeal in pursuance of Section 31 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. The Tribunal took the view that under the provisions of Section 74 of the new Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991, the appeals are filed on November 4, 1991, and in view thereof proceeded to dispose of the appeals in accordance with Section 74 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991, in the light of Section 99(1) relating to repeals and savings of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991. The Tribunal has recorded that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had not gone into the merits of the appeals and felt that the records must be sent back to him for de novo disposal in accordance with Section 72 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991. In the light of the above situation and particularly on the basis of the questions of law referred to above, we have to consider as to whether the Tribunal was right in admitting the appeal to its file by resorting to Section 99(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991, and pass orders as a result thereof. We have also to consider as to whether a second appeal will lie at all when there is no provision to file a first appeal. We have also to consider application of the provisions of Section 99(4) of the new Act. It must be emphasized that these aspects would be required to be considered, with reference to the questions posed relating to the proceedings of second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. In connection with this it will have to be remembered that the appeal before the Tribunal was against the order dated May 31, 1991, passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeals. The Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991, came into force on April 1, 1991. That is obviously before the order in question came to be passed as stated above. Under the new Act, the appeal before the Tribunal is statutorily provided under Section 74 against an order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner under Section 72. Before the Tribunal the order impugned is the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner passed under the provisions of Section 72 of the Act in regard thereto and it would have to be understood in the same way in view of the provisions of Section 99(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991.
7. The said provision saves the previous operation of the Act, any right, title, anything done or any action taken, including any appointment, notification, notice or order in exercise of the powers by or under the earlier Act specifically observing that the same would have to be deemed to have been done or taken in exercise of the powers conferred by or under the Act of 1991. In this connection, Section 99(4), when seen also affords an aid in the context, when it enacts that any proceedings pending before any authority would have to be continued and finally decided or determined as if under the provisions of the earlier Act. The learned Government Pleader submitted that, “that Act would have to be understood as the Act of 1950”. We are afraid that it is not necessary to consider the submission with reference to the questions in regard to which answers are expected.
8. Apart therefrom this court in Vally Estate v. Addl. Agrl. ITO [1994] 208 ITR 224, had an occasion to consider the relevancy of the date with reference to the remedy of the petitioner to observe in connection with the remedy is necessarily related to the date of the impugned order. In regard to the question as to whether the remedy would be by way of a reference under Section 60 of the 1950 Act or to file a review under Section 78 of the 1991 Act, this court observed that the right which accrued on the date of the order passed cannot be said to have been taken away inasmuch as even the deeming provision under Section 99(1) is specifically subject to the rights and obligations accrued or incurred under the 1950 Act.
9. What we are required to consider is the admission and final disposal of the second appeal before the Tribunal. There is no dispute that the impugned order with regard to the proceedings before the second appellate Tribunal which is to be understood in the context of the remedy is provenly after the advent of the new Act.
10. For the above reasons we hold that the second appeal was properly admitted and dealt with by the impugned order. Accordingly, all the revision cases stand dismissed. Ordered as above.