9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (4) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 63 in respect of lands leased out to a sugar factory. In response to a notice under section 17(2) of the Act it was however urged on behalf of the assessee that even the said sum did not represent the income of that year. The assessing authority, however, rejected the assessee's contention and computed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 37,814 calculating the rents at the rate of Rs. 175 per acre for 216.08 acres held by the assessee during the accounting year, and leased out to the sugar factory. The assessment order was challenged before the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and later before the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal but without success. Before the Tribunal the principal contention urged by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it one date of 30th June when admittedly there would be an accrual of rent. It also rejected the assessee's contention that though there was an accrual of rent on June 30, 1961, which fell within the accounting year 1961-62 relevant for the assessment year 1962-63, it had already been brought to tax in the previous year and that, therefore, there could not have been any assessment for the year in question, on the ground that there is no evidence to establish that contention. Before us the learned counsel reiterates practically the same contentions, For appreciating those contentions it is necessary to scan through the lease agreement dated November 13, 1954, entered into between the assessee and the sugar factory. The period of the lease ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30th June" in clause 4 indicates that the lessee has the option of paying the rent before 30th June. But, the lessor can demand and enforce the payment only on 30th June but not before. We are, therefore, of the view that the rent for the lease year ending 30th June, 1962, will accrue only on that date and not earlier, and that the assessing officer is not right in taking the rent accrued due as on 30th June, 1962, as having been accrued earlier in the accounting year ending 31st March, 1962. But, we are, however, not inclined to accept the assessee's contention that the assessment order as such has to be set aside in view of the wrong assumption of the assessing authority that the accrual of rent for the lease year ending on 30th June, 196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs 1961-62 and 1962-63 was slightly less than the extent held by him during the assessment year 1960-61. But, the assessee has been assessed only on the basis of the lesser extent held by him in the year 1962-63, though he is liable to be assessed on a slightly larger extent held by him in the previous year. Therefore, even accepting the contention of the assessee that the date of accrual of the rents has been wrongly taken by the assessing authority, we cannot set aside the assessment as such. We may, however, make it clear that it is open to the assessee to seek whatever remedies that are available to him to have the earlier assessments modified, if possible, taking 30th June of each year as the date of accrual of the rents. Subject to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
