TMI Blog1977 (6) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od of three years under section 65. Therefore, though the order of composition was passed on June 16, 1966, for the assessment year 1966-67, it will enure for three assessment years ending with the assessment year 1968-69. However, the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, after issuing a show-cause notice to the petitioner as to why the order of composition should not be cancelled and after getting an explanation from the petitioner, had cancelled the said order of composition dated June 16, 1966, by his order, dated August 11, 1972. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the said order of the Commissioner. Subsequent to the said impugned order of cancellation the assessing authority has naturally to proceed to assess the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... composition based on the provisions of the Amending Act 7 of 1966 which came into force on May 13, 1966, the order of the Commissioner, so far as the assessment year 1966-67 is concerned, is invalid as the Amending Act was not in force on the first of April, 1966, which is the relevant date for computation of the agricultural income for the assessment year 1966-67. The third is that the Commissioner has erred in his finding that the extent of the petitioner's holding, exceeded 50 standard acres. Learned counsel for the respondents raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of these three writ petitions. According to him, there is a right of revision to this court under section 54 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act against the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion of abatement of these proceedings. As regards the first ground of attack, it is not in dispute that the Tamil Nadu Act 7 of 1966 which took away the benefit of composition in respect of land holdings beyond 50 standard acres came into force only on May 13, 1966. The said Amending Act has not been made specifically retrospective so as to be applicable from April 1, 1966, the commencement of the assessment year. According to the petitioner, Tamil Nadu Act 7 of 1966, which came into force on May 13, 1966, cannot be applied to the assessment year 1966-67 which commenced on April 1, 1966. But, according to the revenue, since the Act had come into force during the assessment year, the assessment has to be made in accordance with the prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contrary. The same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 589. The Supreme Court had held that the amendment of section 10(2) of the Income-tax Act brought in on 4th May, 1946, was inoperative for the assessment year 1946-47, that the amendment which came into force on May 5, 1946, was not retrospective and was not in force on April 1, 1946, and that, therefore, the amendment did not apply to the assessment for the assessment year 1946-47. In Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1966] 60 ITR 262 (SC), dealing with the similar question which arose in respect of an assessment under the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, the Supreme Court pointed ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncement of the assessment year. Therefore, whenever an assessment is to be made, it should be taken to have been made with reference to the law in force at the commencement of the assessment year. In this case, as already stated, the Amending Act came into force on May 13, 1966, and it is not specifically made retrospective. Therefore, for the assessment year which commenced on first April, 1966, the assessment has to be made without reference to the Act 7 of 1966 and the order of the Commissioner so far as it says that as the Amending Act was in force on the date when the composition order came to be made it has to be applied, is illegal and cannot be sustained. In this view, the Commissioner's order so far as it relates to the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion has been dismissed by the Commissioner by an order dated October 31, 1972, holding that no reliance could be placed on the adangal extracts. The petitioner contends before this court that there has been no proper investigation on the petitioner's claim that her holding is less than 50 standard acres based on the adangal extracts and other materials produced by her and that even her attempt to have the impugned orders reviewed had failed. A perusal of the original order of the Commissioner dated October 31, 1972, shows that the Commissioner was not inclined to place any reliance on the entries in adangal made by the local village officers. If the adangal entries show that the petitioner's holding is less than 50 standard acres, it is for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
