9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the authority's decision to revise the assessment based on petitioner's consent during an oral enquiry. 2. Interpretation of whether a partition constitutes a transfer under section 9(2) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act. Analysis: 1. The petitioner contested the authority's decision to revise the assessment for the years 1970-71 and 1971-72 based on his consent given during an oral enquiry. The petitioner argued that his consent alone cannot grant jurisdiction to revise the original assessment. The court held that the authority can only reopen an assessment if there is a valid case for such revision, not merely based on consent. The jurisdiction to revise arises only if the original assessment was incorrect and new information justifies a revision. The court emphasized that consent alone does not empower the authority to reopen an assessment without a valid basis for revision. 2. The second issue revolved around whether a partition deed, transferring lands to the petitioner's minor sons and daughters, constituted a transfer under section 9(2) of the Act. The department contended that since the daughters were not entitled to a share, providing them with one amounted to a transfer, despite being labeled as a partition. However, the court disagreed with this interpretation. Upon reviewing the partition deed, the court found that it met all requirements of a valid partition. The court emphasized that the department cannot question the nature of the partition or the entitlement of the daughters to shares. As partition does not constitute a transfer, section 9(2)(iv) cannot be applied. The court concluded that the authority's decision to ignore the partition deed and base jurisdiction on consent was erroneous. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned orders and made the rule nisi absolute, ruling in favor of the petitioner.
|
