9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction of revisional authority under section 35 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 after the expiry of the limitation period. Analysis: The petitioner, an owner of tea and coffee plantations, filed returns under the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act for assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69, and 1970-71. The assessing authority initially denied the petitioner's claim for a special allowance under section 80-I of the Central Income-tax Act. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax (Appeals) later granted certain reliefs, directing the assessing authority to allow an 8% deduction under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act before determining taxable agricultural income. Subsequently, the Joint Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax issued a show-cause notice proposing to revise the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, leading to the current challenge. The key issue for consideration was whether the revisional authority could revise a consequential order passed in pursuance of the appellate authority's order beyond the four-year limitation period prescribed under section 35 of the Act. Section 35(1) allows the Commissioner or Additional Commissioner to revise orders if they are erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, with a limitation of four years under section 35(2). The critical grounds for revision include the order being passed by a subordinate authority, being erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard, and exercising the power within four years from the date of the order sought to be revised. In this case, the revisional authority's power to revise the order was deemed to be beyond the limitation period as the order sought to be revised was the Deputy Commissioner's decision, not the consequential order by the assessing authority. The Deputy Commissioner's order, passed on November 28, 1977, was considered the relevant order prejudicial to revenue, and the revisional authority's exercise of power beyond the four-year limit was held to be without jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned order by the revisional authority was quashed as it exceeded the prescribed limitation period under section 35(2) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, rendering it void. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the revisional authority's exercise of power beyond the statutory limitation was without jurisdiction, and accordingly allowed the revision, ultimately quashing the order.
|
