9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (7) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment was made by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer was the year 1957-58 and the corresponding previous year was the period commencing on June 1, 1956, and ending on May 31, 1957. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer made an assessment under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (Mysore Act IV of 1955), which will be referred to as the old Act. Section 3 of the 1957 Act, which will be referred to as the new Act, is the charging section, and the charge under that section is on agricultural income in respect of every financial year commencing from the first April, 1957. "Financial year" is defined by section 2(1) (k), which reads: " ' Financial Year' means the year beginning on the 1st April and ending on the 31st March next fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r decision. What the Commissioner should have done was to set out in the statement of the case, the questions of law to be answered by us, remembering that what could be referred to us for decision is the question of law arising out of the order to which section 55(2) refers. So, there should be in the first instance a scrutiny by the Commissioner into the questions of law which the assessee wishes to be referred for ascertaining whether those questions of law arise out of an order under section 32 or section 34 or section 35. If the question which the assessee wishes to be answered does not arise out of these three sections, the Commissioner should decline to refer it for our decision. It is, however, clear, notwithstanding the imperfe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... va Murthy Chetty v. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Chickmagalur) ?" The order which was made in this case out of which any question of law could arise is one made under section 32 and that order is an order in appeal made by the Deputy Commissioner in respect of the assessment for the year which commenced on June 1, 1956, and ended on May 31, 1957. The real question which is before us is whether the assessment should have been made under the new Act and not under the old. Although there are three questions before us, which are couched in extremely obscure phraseology, it is the same matter over and over again put in different form. It is, in our opinion, very clear from the provisions of section 3 of the new Act that in respect of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uncement with which we entirely agree, our answers to the questions before us should therefore be in favour of the assessee in respect of that matter. We, therefore, answer the questions before us thus: (1) Our answer to the first question is that the assessment in respect of the previous year ending on May 31, 1957, was not possible under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. The other part of the question, which concerns itself with the situation of the land, does not arise out of the order made under section 32, and so we decline to answer it. (2) Our answer to the second question is that the assessment for no part of the period commencing on June 1, 1956, and ending on May 31, 1957, was possible under the old Act. We do no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
