1985 (7) TMI 10

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... undivided family properties and the other as the trustee of the trust properties. He filed the return pursuant to the notice disclosing only the income from the properties held by him in his capacity as the Manager of the Hindu undivided family properties, concealing the income derived by him in his capacity as the trustee of the trust properties. The main contention before the Agricultural Income-tax Officer was that he was entitled to exemption under section 4(3) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (" the Act "). The Agricultural Income-tax Officer who inspected the property issued a reassessment notice and completed the assessment without accepting his contention. In appeal and second appeal, the assessee had lost. The Appellate Tr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uld enure for the benefit of the public. Therefore, the second question has to be answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, and we do so. As far as the first question is concerned, there is no dispute that notice under section 35 was received by the assessee who did not file any return for the respective years. There is also no dispute that he had been holding a large extent of agricultural lands. He was, by the notice, required to submit a return inasmuch as in this case, the income escaped was not discovered on information of the assessing authority, but on the fact that the assessee had not filed any return at all. So what he was required at all to do was to file a return of the income derived .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ses which could be distinguished on facts. On the other hand, we find authority for the proposition that merely for the reason that there was defect in the notice issued, the assessment was not liable to be quashed (Mahabir Prasad Poddar v. ITO [1976] 102 ITR 478 (Cal)). We also find support for this view taken in Mohd. Haneef v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 447 (All) and Balchand v. ITO [1969] 72 ITR 197 (SC). For the foregoing reasons, we answer question No. 1 also in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and seal of the court may be sent to the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode.
Case laws, Decisions, Ju .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X