9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (2) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... namely, Good Hope Plantations. The firm originally owned two rubber estates, viz., the New Good Hope Estate and the New Hope Estate. On August 1, 1979, the New Good Hope Estate was partitioned between the two brothers and the firm Good Hope Plantations continued with the New Hope Estate. A settlement deed was brought into existence by Shri George Oommen by which a trust was created. The scope of the trust and other matters connected therewith are in controversy. For the purpose of this batch of eight revisions, it is sufficient to notice the following facts : In this batch of eight revisions, the common order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales tax, Alappuzha, dated March 30, 1991, is assailed. The asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lled the assessments on the two brothers for the years 1981-82 to 1984-85 and ordered a remit to the assessing authority for de novo consideration. The two assessees have filed eight revisions against the common order passed in suo motu revisional proceedings dated March 30, 1991. We heard counsel. As many as five questions have been formulated as questions of law for consideration by this court. One of the fundamental or vital questions raised is that the initiation of the revisional proceedings under section 34 of the Act is not within reasonable time and so are barred. It is common ground that, if proceedings under section 35 of the Act are initiated, it should have been done at the latest on or before March 31, 1990, that is, the la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment order. Once a final assessment is rendered (after the appeal or revision or reference, as the case may be), the finality attached to the order can be put in peril and the assessment can be reopened normally only in proceedings under section 35 or 36 of the Act. To reopen the final assessment after the said periods, in exercise of the powers under section 34 of the Act, demands cogent and sufficient reasons. The power vested in the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax should be exercised bona fide and within a reasonable period. The Revenue should be able to demonstrate that there were circumstances beyond control or other supervening events or insurmountable difficulties for not setting in motion the proceedings under section 34 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances which deterred the Revenue from initiating the revisional proceedings within the time contemplated by section 35 or section 36 of the Act, counsel for the Revenue submitted that there is nothing on record to show that there were any supervening events or circumstances beyond control for not setting in motion the proceedings under section 34 of the Act within the normal period provided in sections 35, and 36 of the Act. So, a remit, for that purpose, is not required. In the above circumstances and in view of the Bench decision of this court in Nelliampathy Tea and Produce Co. Ltd.'s case [1991] 190 ITR 227, we are of the view that suo motu revisional proceedings for the four years 1981-82 to 1984-85 against the two brothers ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
