9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (11) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng her lifetime Lakshmi Ammal filed a suit, O. S. No. 89 of 1121, in the District Court, Nagercoil, against her lessee, one Paliah Nadar for arrears of rent as well as for eviction. During the pendency of the suit, she died and the assessee was impleaded as her legal representative. An amount of ₹ 3,982.62 was realised as arrears of rent for the year 1957-58 and ₹ 857.86 for the year 1958-59. The arrears realised during the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59 were arrears of rent due for the years 1945-49 and the suit for the realisation of the amounts was instituted four years before the death of Lakshmi Ammal. The Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950, came into force on April 1, 1951. The Agricultural Income Tax Officer assessed the two amounts, ₹ 3,982-10-9 and ₹ 875.86, which were realised by the assessee during the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59 as exigible to tax. He rejected the contention of the assessee that the amounts were barred by limitation as they related to the period 1945-49. He also did not agree with the contention of the assessee that the amounts were not assessable under sections 24 and 34 of the Travan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The second contention raised by him was that the receipt of the amount by the assessee, which were due to Lakshmi Ammal during her lifetime, could not be clubbed with the income from the properties inherited by her husband. It was also contended that, as the rent related to 1945-49, the period prior to the coming into force of the Act on April 1, 1951, the amounts are not liable to tax. The Agricultural Income Tax Officer is the person empowered to assess the total agricultural income of the assessee and determine the sum payable by him under section 18 of the Act. An appeal is provided against such assessment by the Agricultural Income Tax Officer to the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner under section 31 of the Act is empowered to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment, to set aside the assessment and direct the Agricultural Income Tax Office to make a fresh assessment after such further enquiry as may be directed, or in the case of any other order, to confirm, cancel or vary such order. Section 32 provides an appeal from the order of the Assistant Commissioner to the Appellant Tribunal. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the appeal is pending before it, or (c) the order has been made more than three years previously. Thus, while there is no restriction on the power of revision by the Commissioner under section 34 of the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income Tax Act, the Madras Agricultural Income Tax Act bars the exercise of the revisional powers before the expiry of the time for an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and during the time when the appeal is pending before the Appellate Tribunal. The question whether the Commissioner under the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income Tax Act can exercise his powers of revision before the expiry of the time for an appeal or pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal does not arise for consideration in this case. As the power of revision under section 34 is subject to the exercise of the power of the Appellate Tribunal under section 32, the power of revision cannot be exercised in any way to affect the appellate powers. It is unnecessary to pursue this discussion further. Suffice it to say that there is no restriction whatsoever for the Commissioner exercising his power under section 34 of the Act, when no appeal had been preferred to the Appellate Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtmental bias. The attitude of the Commissioner in this case is not one which can be said to be free from complaint. In this order the Commissioner has stated as follows : Whatever may be said of this binding nature of the decision of the High Courts on the subordinate judiciary, members of the public, Government and their officers are at liberty to take a different view on subsequent occasions in order that the matter might be taken up to still higher legal tribunals, as the questions involved are legal ones and there is no estoppel or res judicata governing them. It is unfortunate that the Commissioner is not aware of the fact that the decisions of the High Court are binding on all the Tribunals exercising judicial functions. The officers are certainly not at liberty to take different views from those laid down by the High Court, for the purpose of forcing the assessee to take the matter up to the higher Tribunals. The next question that was argued relates to the taxability of the two incomes received by the assessee. There can be no doubt that section 24 of the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income Tax Act can have no application to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable when the income was received had be been living. The revenue, therefore, cannot invoke the aid of section 24 for taxing the assessee. The assessee cannot be taxed for the amounts received by him, for the amounts did not accrue to the assessee during the assessment years, for which tax is sought to be levied. The Supreme Court held that the income received by the legal representative after the death of the assessee subsequent to the year of assessment cannot be deemed by fiction to have been received by the dead person and that the amount cannot be taxed as the income of the legal representative, as the legal representative cannot be deemed to be the assessee for the purpose of assessment in regard to those years. Apart from the objections raised by the assessee regarding the taxability of his income of these two items, the revenue has to contend itself against another objection. It is common ground that the rent for which tax is sought to be levied relates to the period 1945-49, that is, before the Act came into force on April 1, 1951. The income is not taxable under the Act. In a recent decision of this court in Ramakrishnan v. Agricultural Income Tax Officer, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
