1963 (9) TMI 80 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the notice served for assessment under Agricultural Income Tax Act
2. Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer to make best of judgment assessments
3. Availability of alternative remedy through revision to the Commissioner

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of the notice served for assessment under Agricultural Income Tax Act
The petitioner, a minor, through the guardian, challenges the assessment orders for the years 1959-60 and 1960-61, arguing that proper notice was not served as required by section 16(2) of the Act. The guardian asserts that notice should have been sent to her as the appointed guardian, and the absence of such notice invalidates the assessments. The counter-affidavit filed by the Agricultural Income Tax Officer claims that notice was served to the minor petitioner, and as the notice was refused, it was served by affixture. The officer also argues that the petitioner has the option to file a revision to the Commissioner under section 34 of the Act.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer to make best of judgment assessments
The court examines the provisions of the Madras Agricultural Income Tax Act, emphasizing that assessments must follow the prescribed procedures. Section 16 mandates the submission of returns, and section 17 empowers the Income Tax Officer to make assessments to the best of his judgment if a person fails to submit a return. In cases involving minors, section 8 specifies that tax liability falls on the guardian appointed by court. The court concludes that the notice issued to a person not lawfully appointed as the guardian is invalid, rendering the subsequent assessments void due to lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Income Tax Officer.

Issue 3: Availability of alternative remedy through revision to the Commissioner
The court dismisses the argument that the petitioner's right to seek revision to the Commissioner should preclude the issuance of writs. While acknowledging the availability of alternative remedies, the court emphasizes that when a lack of jurisdiction is established, the court is justified in granting the writs. The court allows the petitions, making the rules absolute without costs, and highlights that the department still has the opportunity to make a proper assessment within the limitation period.