9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 65(8) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act. 2. Applicability of the transitory provision under section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1972. Analysis: The case involved a revision petition against the order of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Madras-5, which set aside the order of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Mannargudi, dated January 30, 1973, and restored the same officer's order dated February 24, 1973. The petitioner had applied for composition under section 65(1) of the Act for the assessment year 1972-73. Subsequently, the petitioner sought to file a return of income instead of paying tax on the basis of composition, claiming a right to exercise this option. The petitioner relied on section 65(8) of the Act, which allows opting for a return for the next succeeding or subsequent previous year, not for the same previous year for which composition permission was granted. The court clarified that the option under section 65(8) did not extend to the same previous year as the composition application. Therefore, the petitioner's argument was not valid in this context. The petitioner also relied on the transitory provision in section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1972. However, the court held that this provision applied to cases where a fresh application for composition was made under section 65(1), not for opting to file a return under section 16(1). Additionally, the transitory provision only deemed orders granting permission before November 21, 1972, as ineffective. Since the petitioner's order was issued on January 30, 1973, it did not fall within the scope of this provision. Consequently, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer had no authority to cancel the earlier order and issue a new one. The Commissioner rightly set aside the latter order and reinstated the original order. As a result, the tax revision case was dismissed with costs, including counsel's fee. In conclusion, the court's judgment clarified the limitations of section 65(8) regarding the option to file a return and highlighted the restricted applicability of the transitory provision under section 7. The decision upheld the Commissioner's action in setting aside the Agricultural Income-tax Officer's order, emphasizing the lack of jurisdiction to issue a new order after the original one was passed.
|
