9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge of revised orders of composition passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for nine assessment years. 2. Whether the revised orders of composition were passed under section 35 of the Act without issuing a prior notice to the petitioner. 3. Allegation of incorrect fixation of land extent in Mukundarayapuram village in the revised orders. Analysis: The petitioner, an assessee under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, challenged revised orders of composition for nine assessment years, alleging they were passed without proper notice under section 35 of the Act. The petitioner argued that the original composition orders reserved the right to include lands in Mukundarayapuram village once settlement proceedings were complete. The Commissioner upheld the revisions, stating the original orders allowed for such revisions. However, the court disagreed, stating that revisions under section 35 were necessary if income had escaped assessment due to omitted lands. The court held that the revised orders should be treated as under section 35, and since proper notices were not issued for some years, those revised orders were quashed. Regarding the second ground, the petitioner contended that the land extent in Mukundarayapuram village was incorrectly determined, including lands not belonging to him. For some years, the petitioner was given notice and an opportunity to present objections, but failed to do so. The Commissioner noted the lack of evidence supporting the petitioner's claim. The court stated that since the assessing authority was directed to revise assessments for certain years, the petitioner could now substantiate his claim regarding the land extent. The court dismissed some writ petitions and allowed others, with no costs awarded in any case.
|
