9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Commissioner has the power to set aside suo motu the appellate order of the Assistant Commissioner under section 34 of the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950. 2. Whether the receipt of an amount due to a deceased wife during her lifetime and actually received by the husband is income to be clubbed with the income from the properties inherited by her husband. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Power of the Commissioner to Set Aside Suo Motu the Appellate Order of the Assistant Commissioner: The primary issue revolves around the interpretation of section 34 of the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950. The assessee contended that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to revise the order of the Assistant Commissioner when no appeal had been preferred against it. The court examined the provisions of section 34, which allows the Commissioner to call for the record of any proceeding under the Act taken by any subordinate authority and pass such orders as he thinks fit, either suo motu or on the application of the assessee. The court noted that there are no restrictions on the Commissioner's power to revise the order under section 34 when no appeal has been preferred to the Appellate Tribunal under section 32. The court rejected the assessee's argument that the Commissioner should direct the Income Tax Officer to file an appeal instead of invoking revisional jurisdiction under section 34. The court also dismissed the reasoning in the decision cited by the assessee, which suggested that the Commissioner's jurisdiction under section 34 becomes exercisable only where he has not already formed an objection in favor of the department. The court emphasized that the Act provides a structured hierarchy for assessment and appeals, and the Commissioner's revisional powers are part of this structure. 2. Taxability of Amounts Received by the Assessee: The second issue concerns whether the amounts received by the assessee, which were due to his deceased wife during her lifetime, should be clubbed with his income from properties inherited from her. The court examined section 24 of the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income Tax Act, which corresponds to section 24B of the Indian Income Tax Act. According to the Supreme Court's interpretation in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Amarchand N. Shroff, section 24B extends the legal personality of a deceased assessee for the duration of the entire previous year in which he died, making the income received before his death and by his heirs after his death assessable in the relevant assessment year. However, section 24B does not authorize the levy of tax on receipts by the legal representatives in the years succeeding the year of the deceased's death. The court held that the amounts received by the assessee did not accrue during the assessment years for which tax was sought to be levied. Therefore, the income received by the legal representative after the death of the assessee cannot be taxed as the income of the legal representative for those years. Additionally, the court addressed the objection that the rent for which tax was sought to be levied related to the period 1945-49, before the Act came into force on April 1, 1951. Citing a recent decision in Ramakrishnan v. Agricultural Income Tax Officer, the court held that the Act cannot have retrospective operation to levy tax on income realized from claims for arrears of rent that arose before the Act's commencement. Conclusion: The court answered the first question in favor of the revenue, affirming the Commissioner's power to revise the order of the Assistant Commissioner under section 34 of the Act. The second question was answered in favor of the assessee, ruling that the amounts received by the assessee were not taxable under the Act. The revenue was directed to pay the assessee's costs, including counsel's fees of Rs. 250.
|
