Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 1985 (7) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1985 (7) TMI 26 - HC - Income Tax

Issues:
1. Maintainability of revision petition under section 35 of the Karnataka Agricultural I.T. Act, 1957.
2. Legality of assessment completion without serving proposition notice.
3. Quashing of the assessment order and directions for further proceedings.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Maintainability of revision petition under section 35
The petitioners, agriculturists, failed to file their return within the stipulated time, leading to a best judgment assessment by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer (A.I.T.O.). The Commissioner rejected the revision petition under section 35, stating it was not prejudicial to Revenue. The court noted that section 35(1) only allows revision by the Commissioner if the order is prejudicial to Revenue. The power is limited and cannot be used at the instance of any person. The court upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating the revision filed by the petitioners was not maintainable as per the Act.

Issue 2: Legality of assessment completion without serving proposition notice
The A.I.T.O. completed the assessment without serving the proposition notice on the petitioners before the specified hearing date. The petitioners asserted the notice was served late, which was not denied by the respondents. The court held that without proper service of the notice, the assessment was illegal and violated natural justice principles. As a result, the original assessment order was deemed illegal and liable to be quashed.

Issue 3: Quashing of the assessment order and directions for further proceedings
The court quashed the assessment order and directed the A.I.T.O. to restore the proceedings. The petitioners were given time to file objections to the original notice and appear before the A.I.T.O. The A.I.T.O. was instructed to regulate refund and recoveries according to the new assessment order. The court ordered the parties to bear their own costs and communicated the decision to the respondents within 15 days.

In conclusion, the court upheld the Commissioner's decision on the revision petition's maintainability, deemed the original assessment illegal due to improper notice service, and provided directions for further proceedings in compliance with the law and principles of natural justice.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates