9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue to set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner. 2. Retrospective operation of Section 4A of the Agricultural Income-tax Act. Analysis: Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue The case involved three writ petitions consolidated against the order of the assessing authority under the Agricultural Income-tax Act and the subsequent order of the Board of Revenue. The petitioner objected to the inclusion of income from land held by family members, leading to a series of assessments, appeals, and remands. The Additional Commissioner had directed exclusion of certain lands, but the Board of Revenue set aside this direction, restoring the assessing authority's order for reassessment. The petitioner contended that the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to interfere after the assessing authority had passed an assessment order. The court held that any order passed during a pending appeal or revision against a remand order is subject to the final decision of the superior court. Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized that the trial court's jurisdiction post-remand is derived from the remand order and is subject to the superior court's decision. Therefore, the Board of Revenue's order effectively set aside the assessing authority's assessment order passed in compliance with the Additional Commissioner's remand order. Issue 2: Retrospective operation of Section 4A The second contention raised was regarding the retrospective operation of Section 4A of the Act, inserted in 1953, on transfers made prior to its enactment. Section 4A dealt with the inclusion of income from assets transferred to family members for assessment purposes. The court analyzed the section and noted that it focused on income in the relevant assessment year rather than the date of the transfer. Drawing parallels with similar provisions in the Income-tax Act, the court held that Section 4A was broad enough to encompass income from assets transferred before its enactment. Citing relevant decisions under the Income-tax Act, the court concluded that Section 4A applied to income arising from transfers made before its enactment. Consequently, the petitions challenging the retrospective application of Section 4A were dismissed, emphasizing that the section's scope covered income from transferred assets irrespective of the transfer date. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petitions, affirming the Board of Revenue's jurisdiction to set aside the Additional Commissioner's order and upholding the retrospective application of Section 4A of the Agricultural Income-tax Act.
|
