Law: Income Tax Act (XI of 1922)

Section: 22 (2)

Income tax Act (XI of 1922)---   -- Ss. 22 (2) & 34 Re assessment-Notice to submit particulars within three days Whether defective-Compliance with notice Whether amounts to waiver Madras Plantations Agricultural Income tax Act, 1955, Ss. 16 (2) & 35.   If a notice under section 35 of the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income tax Act, 1955, does not give 30 days' time to submit particulars, it is defective, and re assessment made in pursuance of that notice is illegal and void. Mere compliance with the notice by the assessee will not amount to waiver of the defect by the assessee. The fact that the notice does not call for a return but only for particulars will not make any difference.   Under the Income tax Act, 1922, a period of not less than 30 days has been stipulated for anything that the assessee may be called upon to do in accordance with section 22 (2) by a notice under section 34 and the position is the same under the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income tax Act, 1955, because sections 16 (2) and 35 of this Act correspond to sections 22 (2) and 34 of the Income tax Act, 1922 respectively.   Commissioner of Income tax v. Ramsukh Motilal (1955) 27 I T R 54 fol.   Narayana Chetty v. Income tax Officer, Nellore (1959) 35 I T R 388 rel.   Commissioner of Agricultural Income tax v. Sultan Ali Gharami (1951) 20 I T R 432 and R. K. Das & Co. v. Commissioner of Income tax (1956) 30 I T R 439 ref. JUDGMENT   M. S. MENON, J. This is an application by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income tax, Kerala, under section 54 (1) of the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income tax Act, 1955, questioning the correctness of the order of the Agricultural Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, in Agricultural Income tax Appeal No. 33 of 1959. The assessee is the Amalgamated Coffee Estates Limited, Sitharkunda. The assessment related to the assessment year 1955-56.   The Tribunal set aside the re-assessment under section 35 of the Act on the ground that the notice issued under that section gave only a period of three days, that is, less than the minimum prescribed under section 16 (2) of the Act. That fact,…