9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax to grant relief for an exempt item not claimed before the original authority. Detailed Analysis: Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax: In all the writ petitions, the central issue was whether the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax has jurisdiction to grant relief for an item exempt from taxation even if the exemption was not claimed before the original authority. The petitioner, an assessee, filed returns showing a net income of Rs. 85,261 for the assessment year 1971-72, which was accepted, and a tax of Rs. 30,581.60 was levied. Subsequently, the petitioner discovered that life insurance premiums paid amounting to Rs. 11,629.69 were exempt and sought revision for exemption. The Commissioner disallowed the claim solely because the exemption was not claimed in the original return. The petitioner's counsel argued that under Section 34 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, the Commissioner has wide revisional powers, including the authority to make inquiries and pass orders as deemed fit, subject to the Act's provisions. Section 10(1)(e) of the Act exempts sums paid towards insurance premiums. The counsel cited several cases to support the argument that the revisional authority should consider exemptions even if not claimed initially, emphasizing that the Commissioner failed to exercise his jurisdiction properly. The department's counsel contended that since the original authority accepted the return without the exemption claim, there was no duty to allow it, and the revisional authority's refusal was justified. They relied on the precedent set in Bombay Ammonia Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1976] 37 STC 517 (SC), where the Supreme Court held that an assessee who acquiesced in the original assessment could not later claim exemptions in revision. Upon reviewing Section 34, it was noted that the revisional powers include making inquiries and passing orders as deemed fit. Section 10(1)(e) specifies exemptions for insurance premiums, and the power of assessment is subject to this provision. Thus, the Commissioner should have considered the exemption claim, regardless of its omission in the original return. The judgment referenced several cases supporting the petitioner's stance: - Pandit Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1967] 66 ITR 647 (All): The Commissioner must consider whether the petitioner is taxable on the claimed income, even if not initially claimed. - Union Coal Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1968] 70 ITR 45 (Cal): The Appellate Assistant Commissioner can consider new claims for deductions made for the first time during the appeal. - Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gurjargravures Pvt. Ltd. [1972] 84 ITR 723 (Guj): The Appellate Assistant Commissioner can examine exemption claims not raised before the Income-tax Officer. - Giridharlal Parasmal v. State of Mysore [1967] 20 STC 64 (Mys): Appellate authorities must correct obvious mistakes and grant exemptions due to the assessee. The court found that the revisional authority erred in refusing to consider the exemption claim based on its omission in the original return. The Bombay Ammonia case was distinguished as it involved an assessee who acquiesced in the assessment and did not seek revision or appeal. Conclusion: The court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter to the revisional authority for reassessment, considering the exemption claim. The petitioner was awarded costs, and similar relief was granted in related writ petitions with no order as to costs.
|
