9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (6) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called tile, Act "), is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax in Mysore (respondent No. 2) dated March 31, 1960, which affirmed the order of assessment dated April 11, 1959, made by th Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Dharwar (respondent No. 3), under section 19(4) of the Act. The assessment relates to the assessment year 1957-58, the relative previous year being the year ended March 31, 1957. The petitioner challenged the order of assessment on several grounds and one of the grounds was that the Act did not levy any charge on the income derived prior to November 1, 1956, from lands that were situated In the former State of Bombay but included in the new S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sub-section (1) or subsection (2) of section 18, as the case may be, or fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub-section (4) of that section or under subsection (2) of this section, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer shall make the assessment to the best of his judgment and determine the sum payable by the assessee on the basis of such assessment . . . It is clear from the above that the Agricultural Income-tax Officer has the power to make the assessment to the best of his judgment only in cases where any person fails to make a return under sub-section (1) or subsection (2), as the case may be. In cases where sub-section (1) or subsection (2) of section 18 is not attracted, the power under sub-section (4) of secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der that a notice purporting to be one under sub-section (2) of section 18 was served on the petitioner on February 19, 1959, and since the petitioner did not file any return, the 3rd respondent proceeded to make the order of assessment under sub-section (4) of section 19 treating the petitioner as a defaulter. Since the 3rd respondent had no jurisdiction to issue a notice after March 31, 1958, calling upon the petitioner to file a return for the assessment year 1957-58 and the notice issued was illegal and without jurisdiction, the petitioner was justified in not submitting a return. The petitioner not being a defaulter, the power under sub-section (4) of section 19 was also not available to the 3rd respondent to make an order of assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
