9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (6) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5, 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78. For the first two years, it was so made on January 2, 1981, and for the later-two years on December 18, 1981. According to the petitioner, the assessments were made without evidence or material or even without affording proper opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner filed revision petitions before the 1st respondent, Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Trivandrum. By a consolidated order passed, the 1st respondent by exhibit P-3, dated December 16, 1982, set aside all the four assessments with certain observations and ordered a remit for de novo disposal according to law for all the four years. The petitioner assails exhibit P-3 order. Petitioner's counsel, T. L. Viswanatha Iyer, assails exhibit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of firm or association. Where agricultural income is received by a firm or association of persons and the business of such firm or association is discontinued or such firm or association is dissolved, every person who was at the time of such discontinuance or dissolution a partner of such firm or member of such association shall be jointly and severally liable to assessment on such agricultural income and for the amount of agricultural income-tax payable under this Act by such firm or association and all the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply to such assessment. 34. Revision. -The Commissioner may, of his own motion or on application by an assessee, call for the record of any proceeding under this Act which has been ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the partners to the assessee and then the names of all the four partners appear. The notice of demand is addressed in the name of the firm. The assessments were made under section 18(4) of the Act since the partners did not file the returns. Nor did they comply with any of the notices. All the assessments were default assessments. The partners who are jointly and severally liable to assessments as provided under section 26 of the Act and who had notice all through did not raise any objection at the time when the assessments were made by the assessing authority. They did not avail themselves of the opportunity afforded to them. The objection regarding the completion of the assessments in the status of "unregistered firm" seems to have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all the assessment orders on all the partners individually, the nature of the description of the assessee as the firm which stood dissolved and the status as an unregistered firm whether there was any prejudice to the partners in the description of the name of the assessee and the status in the assessment orders, were never adverted to. These factors are of vital importance. It is true, as contended by the Revenue, that the exercise of power by the Commissioner is revisional and that it is a discretionary jurisdiction. It is further true, as contended by the Revenue, that the Commissioner can look into the conduct of the persons who filed the revisions and consider whether the conduct is such entitling them to any relief. But the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
