9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (6) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. The assessment relates to the assessment year 1957-58, the relative previous year being the year ended March 31, 1957. The petitioner challenged the order of assessment on several grounds and one of the grounds was that the Act did not levy any charge on the income derived prior to November 1, 1956, from lands that were situated In the former State of Bombay but included in the new State of Mysore, This court allowed the writ petition on the said ground by its order dated October 30, 1961, following its decision in Writ Petition No. 2214 of 1959. Tile State of Mysore preferred appeals against the said decision in Writ Petition No. 224 of 1959 and the connected matters to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 1176 to 1178 and 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch assessment . . . It is clear from the above that the Agricultural Income-tax Officer has the power to make the assessment to the best of his judgment only in cases where any person fails to make a return under sub-section (1) or subsection (2), as the case may be. In cases where sub-section (1) or subsection (2) of section 18 is not attracted, the power under sub-section (4) of section 19 cannot be exercised. The Act came into force on October 1, 1.957. Sub-section (1) of section 18 of the Act provides: (1) Every person whose total agricultural income durig the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to agricultural income-tax shall furnish to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer so as to reach him before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue a notice after March 31, 1958, calling upon the petitioner to file a return for the assessment year 1957-58 and the notice issued was illegal and without jurisdiction, the petitioner was justified in not submitting a return. The petitioner not being a defaulter, the power under sub-section (4) of section 19 was also not available to the 3rd respondent to make an order of assessment to the best of his judgment. Therefore, in our opinion, the 3rd respondent has acted in excess of his jurisdiction in making the assessment on the petitioner for the assessment year 1957-58. For the above reasons, the impugned order of assessment made by the 3rd respondent and the orders of the 2nd respondent which affirmed the order of the 3rd respondent a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
