9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (7) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is held as invalid - - - - - Dated:- 6-7-1971 - Judge(s) : RAMAPRASADA RAO. JUDGMENT RAMAPRASADA RAO J.- For the assessment year 1958-59, the petitioner was assessed for agricultural income-tax under section 17(4), Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. The original order is dated April 13, 1961. It appears that proceedings were taken under section 35 of the Act and the case of the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Commissioner was that there was no acknowledgment of any notice issued under section 35 and, therefore, the reassessment order is illegal and unsustainable. The Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, however, relied upon the signature of the petitioner in a blank form of a notice captioned to be one generally issued in proceedings under section 35 of the Act. The records have been brought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . No part of it is filled up with any material or matter so as to make it appear that there was any reason at all for the Agricultural Income-tax Officer to act under section 35. The fact that an enquiry was held on such an inchoate and irregular notice under section 35 does not make any difference at all. But, this enquiry was made much of by the Commissioner when he observed that the revision-pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. The Commissioner failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law. There is therefore an apparent error as well as an irregular exercise of jurisdiction which is patent in the challenged order. I am unable to agree with the conclusion of the Commissioner that there was proper and sufficient service of notice within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. As already stated it is not nece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
