TMI Blog1971 (2) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment year 1962-63, it filed a return of its total income, and also applied for renewal of the registration. Renewal was refused by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Chittoor, who by his order, exhibit P-5, dated November 1, 1963, assessed it as unregistered firm. It filed O. P. No. 2 of 1963 in this court to quash the above assessment. This court, by its judgment, exhibit P-3, dated June 16, 1964, set aside the assessment holding that the assessment cannot be sustained in the light of the finding of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer that there was no partnership under law. This court also observed that the Income-tax Officer would be free to proceed afresh in accordance with law. Thereupon, the respondent, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales-tax (Special), Kozhikode, took up the matter ; and by his order, exhibit P-6, dated December 15, 1965, assessed the Karappara Estate assigning it the status of " tenants-in-common ". The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, North Zone, Kozhikode, from the above assessment without success. Then it filed a second appeal before the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, who by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of a company on the principal officer thereof, a notice containing all or any of the requirements, which may be included in 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, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that sub-section : Provided that the tax shall be charged at the rate at which it would have been charged if such income had not escaped assessment or full assessment, as the case may be. Provided further that the Agricultural Income-tax Officer shall not issue a notice under this sub-section unless he has recorded his reasons for doing so. (2) No order of assessment under section 18 or of assessment or reassessment under sub-section (1) of this section shall be made after the expiry of three years from the end of the year in which the agricultural income was first assessable : Provided that where a notice under sub-section (1) has been issued within the time therein limited, the assessment or reassessment to be made in pursuance of such notice may be made before the expiry of one year from the date of the service of the notice eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the proceedings were time-barred. The Income-tax Officer rejected that contention ; and his order was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal on the around that the assessee became first assessable by the finding of the Tribunal that the parent family had been partitioned and the impugned assessment was within the prescribed period of limitation from the date of the Tribunal's order. In the High Court, the order of assessment was sought to be saved from the bar of limitation relying on the second proviso to section 34(3) of the Act which corresponds to the second proviso to section 35(2) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. The contention was rejected following the decision of the Supreme Court in S. C. Prashar v. Vasanten Dwarkasdas ; and the High Court held that the proviso can apply only to a person who was a party to the proceedings, and who alone would be affected by the order of the Appellate Tribunal. I respectfully agree with the above view and it fully supports the petitioner's contention in the instant case. The learned Government pleader referred me to a decision of the Supreme Court in Daffadar Bhagat Singh Sons v. Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Ferozepur. In tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent assessment proceedings are against an association of persons. They are different persons, having different status under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, and also under the Income-tax Acts of 1922 and 1961. In the case before the Supreme Court, the appellant was a firm, and the impugned assessment proceedings were taken in that case against the same firm, to give effect to the finding and direction contained in the appellate order. That was a case to which the proviso squarely applied. The learned Government pleader also referred me to my decision in Ishwara Bhat v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax. That decision has no application to the instant case, since the assessee sought to be proceeded against is a different person from the one concerned in the appeal, as pointed out above. It may also be incidentally observed that the above decision appears to have been overruled by a Full Bench of this court in I.T.R. Case No. 9 of 1968, in which the majority took the view that the Commissioner acting under section 34 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act must act within the period prescribed in section 35 for making a reassessment. The reasoning in that decision appears t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
