9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (6) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... galbari Tea Estate at Rs. 3,00,000 for the assessment year 1957-58, and assessed the petitioner to pay the agricultural income-tax of Rs. 1,01,605 for the year. The petitioner states that no notice under section 19(2) of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939, hereinafter called "the Act", was served upon him prior to the order of assessment. As the tax demand has not been complied with by the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 issued certificate for recovery of the tax and a Bakijai proceeding was started against the petitioner in the court of the Bakijai Officer, Jorhat. In connection with the aforesaid Bakijai proceeding, steps were taken in Land Sale Case No. 60/1968 for sale of immovable properties. The petitioner raised in his pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year 1957-58. A copy of the relevant order, dated July 16, 1957, passed by the respondent No. 1 on the order sheet for the assessment year 1957-58, and also a copy of the relevant entry in the 'register of letters issued' by the respondent No. 1 showing the issue of the said notice in compliance with the aforesaid order dated July 16, 1957, are annexed hereto as annexures 'A' and 'B', respectively. I further state that, besides the above statutory notices, the petitioner was also reminded for the submission of the returns of agricultural income and certified copies of the assessment orders under the Income-tax Act, 1922, in respect of this assessment year 1957-58, along with those for the assessment years 1956-57 and 1958-59 to 1961-62, vid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lished from this entry. It is also not established whether the notice was served by post or served personally on the petitioner through "peon book". The evidence produced by the department read with the affidavit does not establish that the notice under section 19(2) was served on the petitioner. The fact that by annexure,"C", dated February 6, 1962, the petitioner was requested to furnish the returns and copies of central assessment orders for 1956-57 to 1961-62 does not establish service of the notice under section 19(2). There is also no evidence to show that even this notice dated February 6, 1962, was served on the petitioner. Not even an entry in the issue register is produced with regard to this notice. Section 19(2) in terms provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred by the rule of three years laid down under that section. That is why the learned Advocate-General, Assam, sought to establish service by relying upon annexures "A" and "B". We are, however, clearly of the opinion that service of notice under section 19(2) has not been established in this case and hence the order of assessment being beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant financial year is without jurisdiction and invalid. We are fortified in this view by the decision of the Supreme Court (State of Assam v. D. C. Chouduri) and also by another very recent decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 1633-1636 of 1967 (Khanikar Tea Estate v. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Assam) delivered on July 22, 1971. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
