| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1963 SLG 179 1963 SLD 179 (1963) 47 ITR 122 |
Kerala High Court
O.P. No. 448 OF 1959, SEPTEMBER 19, 1960
VELU PILLAI, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
O.P. No. 448 OF 1959, SEPTEMBER 19, 1960
VELU PILLAI, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
V. Srinivasa Naicken
v.
AgriculTURal Income Tax Officer, Palai
Law:
Section:
- Sections 17(2) & 35 - Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 CASES REFERRED TO CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [1940] 8 ITR 442 ; AIR 1940 PC 124 and CIT v. Ramsukh Motilal [1955] 27 ITR 54 ; AIR 1955 Bom. 227. V. Rama Shenoy for the Petitioner. JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner was assessed to agricultural income-tax on October 5, 1958, for the assessment year 1955-1956, corresponding to the accounting year 1129 M.E. On November 27, 1958, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Palai, issued exhibit P-1, notice, to the petitioner, intimating him that he proposed to reassess his income for the accounting years 1129, 1130 and 1131 M.E. and inviting objections, if any, to be filed within 35 days of the receipt of the notice. This was followed by another notice, exhibit P-2, dated January 30, 1959, which stated that the assessments made on the petitioner for the assessment years 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58 will be reopened and fresh assessments made under section 35 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, which may be referred to briefly as the "Act". The petitioner took no action pursuant to the notice. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer made a reassessment by order, exhibit P-3, on March 10, 1959. A notice of demand, exhibit P-4, was then issued to the petitioner for the payment of tax imposed. This petition is to quash both exhibits P-3 and P-4. 2. The chief ground on which the petitioner relies is that no notice had been issued to the petitioner under section 35 of the Act and that therefore the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to make the assessment. It was not disputed before me that the issue of the notice under section 35 is a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Income-tax Officer to make a reassessment. The controversy was as to the scope of a notice under section 35. The material part of this section provides : "If for any reason agricultural income chargeable to tax under this Act has escaped assessment in any financial year,..Income-tax Officer may,,,serve on the person liable to pay the tax,,,,a notice under sub-section (2) of section 17 and may proceed to assess or reassess such income and the provisions of this Act shall,…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492