9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of provisions in section 36 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act regarding rectification of mistakes altering the status of an assessee from "registered firm" to "unregistered firm." Analysis: The writ appeal stemmed from a judgment in O. P. No. 5386 of 1989, where the main issue was whether section 36 of the Act allowed changing the status of an assessee from a "registered firm" to an "unregistered firm." The learned single judge concluded that the Agricultural Income-tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to make such a change. This conclusion was challenged in the writ appeal. The learned single judge based the conclusion on previous decisions and opined that rectification of errors not related to assessment was beyond the authority granted by section 36. The judge emphasized that changing the status of an assessee from "registered firm" to "unregistered firm" did not rectify an assessment mistake. The judge also noted that as long as the order allowing the renewal of registration stands, there is no apparent error on record, even if the renewal application is part of the assessment record. The appellants argued that the renewal order under rule 6 of the Agricultural Income-tax Rules should be considered part of the assessment record. However, the learned judge maintained that the officer's attempt to change the renewal decision was not rectifying a mistake but substituting a different opinion. The judge concluded that unless the renewal order is altered, the status of the firm cannot be changed to an "unregistered firm." Ultimately, the court found no reason to interfere with the learned judge's conclusions. The court emphasized that the genuineness of the firm was not in question, and the officer's attempt to change the status was based on a different opinion, not a rectifiable mistake. Consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.
|
