9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (8) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. He was allowed rebate on insurance premia of Rs. 3,135.14 nP. On that basis, the net tax payable by him was determined at Rs. 2,226.97. Subsequently, noticing that the rebate was wrongly allowed in view of the second proviso to section 10(e)(i) of the Act, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 35 and revised the assessment. The respondent's appeal failed but in his further appeal, the Tribunal took the view that this was not a case of income that had escaped assessment or had been assessed at too low a rate. At the instance of the revenue the following question has been referred to us. " Whether an improper allowance of rebate of insurance premium can be revoke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oyed in the relative section, be it under the Income-tax Act or any other taxing statute as it stood by amendments from time to time. Our task, however, in the present case seems to be very much lightened because, in our opinion, so far as the interpretation of section 35 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, is concerned, it is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar Section 35 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, reads : " Income escaping assessment.--If for any reason agricultural income chargeable to tax under this Act has escaped assessment in any financial year or has been assessed at too low a rate, the Agricultural income-tax Officer may, at any time within three y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the assessee had not only returned the income but it was held to be exempt, it could not be said to have escaped assessment so as to bring it under section 26. The Province of Bihar (as it was then called moved the High Court of Patna on a reference and successfully. The assessee thereafter went up to the Supreme Court by special leave. Hidayatullah J., who spoke for the court, held at page 1309 : "........ we are of opinion that the Agricultural Income-tax Officer competent under section 26 of the Act to assets an item of income which he had omitted to tax earlier, even though in the return that income was included and the Agricultural Income-tax Officer then thought that it was exempt. " On that view the appeal was dismissed. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
