1995 (7) TMI 63 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Reopening of assessments under Agricultural Income-tax Act for the years 1984-85 to 1987-88.
2. Filing of applications under section 19 to reopen assessments.
3. Rejection of applications due to delay.
4. Appeals before Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
5. Rectification of order under section 36 of the Act.
6. Invocation of section 5 of the Limitation Act in a petition under section 19.
7. Power to condone delay in filing appeals under sections 31(3) and 32(3) but not under section 19.
8. Validity of exhibit P-3 order rectifying the earlier decision.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to assessments under the Agricultural Income-tax Act for the years 1984-85 to 1987-88. The petitioner filed applications under section 19 to reopen the assessments, which were rejected due to being filed beyond the prescribed one-month period from the notice of demand. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeals, leading to second appeals before the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which initially allowed the appeals but later rectified the order under section 36 of the Act. The challenge in the original petition was against this rectification in exhibit P-3.

The main issue addressed was the invocation of section 5 of the Limitation Act in a petition filed under section 19 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act. The court clarified that while sections 31(3) and 32(3) allow for condonation of delay in filing appeals, no such provision exists under section 19. The court emphasized that the Act is self-contained, and the Agricultural Income-tax Officer lacks the power to condone delays in section 19 petitions. Therefore, the petitioner was required to adhere to the statutory one-month period for filing such applications.

Regarding the rectification under section 36, the court upheld the validity of exhibit P-3 order. Section 36(1) permits rectification of mistakes within three years, and the Tribunal rectified its earlier decision after realizing that the delay in filing the petition under section 19 could not be condoned. The court found no reason to quash exhibit P-3 order, ultimately dismissing the original petition challenging the rectification decision.