9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (6) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. She does not do any cultivation. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Gudalur, by his order dated February 15, 1962, assessed the petitioner for a total agricultural income of Rs. 14,882.43 and to a tax of Rs. 1,796.49 for the assessment year 1961-62. The case of the petitioner is that the income is not taxable agricultural income as it related to the proceeds of sale of timber trees of spontaneous growth. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer did not accept the contention of the petitioner and even so the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Ootacamund. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner relied upon a decision of the Appellate Tribunal in A.T.A. No. 82 of 1961 dated August 17, 1962, declaring that the income from the sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since reported in Kantan v. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Ootacamund, which was later affirmed by a Full Bench of this court in Seshadrinathan v. State of Madras. It is against the dismissal of this revision petition the present writ petition has been filed. I am constrained to point out that the decision relied upon by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax has no application at all to the present case. That was a case where the Division Bench as well as the Full Bench of this court were considering the meaning of the expression " order prejudicial to the assessee " which appears in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 34 of the Act. That has absolutely no bearing on the power of the Commissioner to entertain an appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the impugned order to the Appellate Tribunal has not expired. This negative import of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 34 projects the position that the Commissioner can revise an order under sub-section (1) of section 34, if no such appeal has been filed to the Appellate Tribunal by the aggrieved person against the order of any subordinate authority. This appears to be so clear from a fair reading of the text of the clause. Clause (b) injuncts the Commissioner from entertaining a revision petition if such an appeal has been filed to the Appellate Tribunal and the same is pending. With the above background as to the statutory provisions regarding the entertainability and disposal of revision petitions before the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould not lightly use their discretion and refuse to interfere on grounds which are neither reasonable nor proper. It is only to plug a situation faced by an aggrieved assessee who is unable to approach the appellate authorities for relief that a proceeding by way of revision is thought of by the legislature and in such circumstances a public duty is imposed on the Commissioner not only to entertain such application, but to deal with the same in accordance with law, after giving the aggrieved party a reasonable opportunity of being heard. I am unable to agree with the learned Government Pleader that the word " may " in the instant case should be interpreted literally and ought not to be understood as casting a public duty on the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
