9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (5) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. The respondent is the Revenue. The petitioner is an assessee to agricultural income-tax. By exhibit P-4 dated February 18, 1989, the appellant was assessed for four years from 1983-84 to 1986-87 under section 18(4) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act. The attack in the original petition was against exhibit P-4. It was argued that exhibit P-4 is illegal and void, in that the assessee was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant, as also learned Government Pleader. The relevant assessment records were produced before us. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer who passed exhibit P-4 as also exhibit X-1 proceedings was also present in court. It is evident that the assessing authority required the assessee (appellant) to file his objections to the preassessment notice within seven days from the date of receipt of the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod, the assessing authority was not empowered or competent to pass the best judgment assessment under section 18(4) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act. The assessing authority had no jurisdiction to render exhibit P-4 on February 18, 1989. Exhibit P-4 is illegal and void. There has been denial of natural justice and failure to comply with the provisions of the Agricultural Income-tax Act. On this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
