1971 (6) TMI 8 - HC - Income Tax

Mysore Agricultural Income Tax Act - issue of a notice under section 36 is a condition precedent to the validity of the assessment on agricultural income which has escaped assessment or has been under-assessed in the assessment year and if no such notice is issued or if the notice issued is invalid the assessment is bad in law. As we have observed earlier there were no notices issued to the assessee requiring him to furnish the returns under section 36 read with section 18(2) of the Act which is the condition precedent for initiating proceedings under section 36. Therefore the entire reassessment proceedings ending with the assessments under revision are illegal and without jurisdiction

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings under section 36 of the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67.

Detailed Analysis:

The judgment delivered by the High Court of Karnataka pertains to two revision petitions filed by a common assessee under section 55 of the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957. The petitions relate to the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67. The assessee, engaged in arecanut cultivation, initially filed returns declaring 4.27 acres of land under arecanut cultivation, which were accepted by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Tumkur.

Subsequently, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer issued notices under section 36 of the Act for re-opening the assessments, alleging that the assessee had not declared the full extent of the commercial crop raised. The notices did not require the assessee to file returns but only to submit objections to the proposed reassessment. The assessing authority, disregarding the objections raised by the assessee, reassessed the income based on a higher extent of land under arecanut cultivation.

The main contention raised in the revision petitions was that the reassessment proceedings initiated under the notices were illegal and lacked jurisdiction. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Act, particularly section 36, which mandates the issuance of a notice to the assessee for assessing or reassessing income that has escaped assessment. The court highlighted that the notices in question did not call for the filing of returns, a prerequisite for initiating proceedings under section 36.

The court emphasized that the issuance of a valid notice under section 36 is crucial for the legality of reassessment on agricultural income. Since the notices issued to the assessee were deficient in requiring the submission of returns, the entire reassessment process, culminating in the assessments under revision, was deemed illegal and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the court allowed the revision petitions, setting aside the reassessment orders for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 and awarding costs to the petitioner.

In conclusion, the High Court of Karnataka invalidated the reassessment proceedings due to the absence of proper notices calling for the submission of returns, as mandated by the Act. The judgment underscores the significance of procedural compliance in reassessment actions under section 36 of the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, ensuring the protection of the assessee's rights and upholding the principles of natural justice.