1972 (6) TMI 22 - HC - Income Tax

Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1939 - It is specifically averred by the petitioner in petition that no notice under section 19(2) of the Act was served upon the petitioner and the order of assessment was passed without service of such notice upon the petitioner. - When the assessee does not file return of income and no notice under s. 19(2) was served whether assessment could be completed also whether question of service of notice can be looked into a writ petition against assessment order without issue of notice

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the validity of provisions of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939 and Rules framed thereunder. Jurisdictional issue regarding the service of notice under section 19(2) of the Act. Validity of the assessment order and applicability of section 30 of the Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner, the managing director of a tea estate, challenged the validity of the assessment order by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Shillong, for the assessment year 1957-58. The petitioner claimed that no notice under section 19(2) of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939, was served on him prior to the assessment order, rendering the assessment illegal and without jurisdiction. The key contention raised was the absence of the statutory notice, which is crucial for a valid assessment under the Act.

The respondent, in response, provided evidence of the notice served under section 19(2) through an order dated July 16, 1957, and an entry in the issue register. However, the court found that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish the actual service of the notice on the petitioner. The court highlighted the importance of proper service of notice under section 19(2) for a valid assessment and concluded that the Agricultural Income-tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to make the assessment under section 20(4) due to the absence of proper notice.

The court further examined the applicability of section 30 of the Act, which allows for the reassessment of escaped income within a specified period. It was noted that the three-year limitation period under section 30 had expired, and the jurisdiction of the officer to assess the income was therefore barred. The court referred to relevant legal provisions and previous Supreme Court decisions to support its conclusion that the assessment order was invalid due to jurisdictional issues and being time-barred under section 30.

Based on the analysis, the court allowed the petitioner's application, making the rule nisi absolute and directing the respondents to refrain from taking any action based on the impugned assessment order. The court did not award costs in this matter. The judgment was agreed upon by both judges, emphasizing the importance of proper statutory procedures and jurisdictional requirements in tax assessments.