9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt No. 1, namely, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Assam, assessed the agricultural income-tax payable by the petitioner-firm, for the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1990-91, at Rs. 4,80,559, Rs. 3,33,342 and Rs. 77,627, respectively. Having so completed the assessment of agricultural income-tax, respondent No. 3 raised a demand, on March 30, 1995, for payment of Rs. 4,80,559, Rs. 3,33,342 and Rs. 77,627 under section 23 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939, (in short, "the said Act"), directing the petitioner-firm to make payment of the assessed amount by April 30, 1995. By letter, dated December 8, 1995, issued by respondent No. 1, the petitioner-firm was informed that the petitioner-firm was in default of payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, i.e., 1986-87, 1988-89 and 1990-91, the demands raised by letters, dated January 8, 1998, and January 19, 1998, aforementioned were higher than the assessment orders made in this regard inasmuch as the assessment made in respect of the assessment year 1986-87 was Rs. 4,80,559, but the demand raised for payment by letter, dated January 19, 1998, was to the tune of Rs. 10,42,903 and, similarly, in respect of the assessment years 1987-88 and 1990-91, the assessments made were Rs. 3,33,342 and Rs. 2,64,319, respectively, but the demands for payment of the assessment years 1987-88 and 1990-91 were to the tune of Rs. 7,77,091 and Rs. 5,86,025, respectively. The petitioner-firm, vide their letters, dated February 19, 1998, aforementioned also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of penalty, as indicated herein-before, the petitioners have impugned the same in the present writ petition, the main ground of challenge being that no notice was issued to the petitioner-firm in terms of the provisions of section 36(2) of the said Act before the penalty was imposed on the petitioner-firm. I have heard Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. Though the respondents have not filed any affidavit, they have contended, at the time of hearing of this writ petition, that a notice directing payment of the dues was issued to the petitioner-firm, on February 14, 1997, in terms of section 36(2). However, no copy of the noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5G and 35H, the assessee shall be deemed to be in default: Provided that the Superintendent of Taxes or Agricultural Income-tax Officer may, in respect of any particular assessee and for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the date of payment of dues or allow such assessee to pay the same by instalments and in such cases the assessee shall not be deemed to be in default, but in all such cases the provisions of sections 35C, 35D and 35E shall apply. (2) Where an assessee is in default, the Superintendent of Taxes or Agricultural Income-tax Officer may, in his discretion, direct that in addition to the amount due, a sum not exceeding that amount shall be recovered from the defaulter by way of penalty: Provided that no order of imposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessed tax in instalments and in such a case, the assessee will not be deemed to be a defaulter till the date as extended or till the last date of payment by instalment is over. When an assessee is in default within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 36, because of the fact that he has not made payment of the tax within the time originally given or within the extended time, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer or Superintendent of Taxes, as the case may be, has the power to impose, by way of penalty, a sum not exceeding the amount, which the assessee has failed to pay as the assessed tax. The power to levy penalty is, thus, in addition to the power to order recovery of the assessed tax as arrear of land revenue. From the scheme of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the fact that the letters, dated December 18, 1995, were issued by the respondents, demanding payment of Rs. 4,80,559, Rs. 3,33,342, and Rs. 77,627 (which was revised to Rs. 2,64,319) for the assessment years 1986-87, 1988-89 and 1990-91, respectively, with a caution that the demands, if not immediately met, would entail recovery proceeding under section 36, no notice was given to the petitioner-firm to show cause as to why penalty, as provided by section 36(2), be not imposed on the petitioner-firm for their failure to make payment of the assessed tax. In fact, by letters, dated January 19, 1998, and January 8, 1998, aforementioned, what were demanded were not only the payment of tax and interest, which had accrued thereon, but also th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
