TMI Blog1995 (8) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of suo motu revision. By the said order dated February 19, 1988, of the Commissioner, he set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, the first appellate authority, dated April 29, 1985, and by the same order he also made some modifications to the original assessment order dated December 31, 1984. Originally, the assessing authority, in computing the total agricultural income, disallowed a sum of Rs. 66,304.08 representing the expenditure incurred for upkeep and maintenance of the residential building of the manager and administrative officer of the assessee's estate. Further, out of a sum of Rs. 5,19,153.18 claimed by the assessee as plucking charges in the estate, in the said assessment order, he disallowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee submits that since the genuineness of the vouchers and accounts produced is not doubted there is no scope for making any revision as has been done by the Commissioner. He also points out that in the show-cause notice dated March 23, 1987, that was given under section 34 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, nothing was stated as to any proposal to revise the order of the original assessing authority. If that is so, the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to make any alteration with reference to the assessing authority's order in relation to the abovesaid sum of Rs. 34,005.60 and Rs. 19,874.24. Further, learned counsel submits that all that the Commissioner says in the show-cause notice even with reference to his proposal to revise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are in excess, will not give the revisional authority to invoke power under sect ion 34 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. That apart, from the show-cause notice it is seen that the Commissioner is seeking to revise only the order of the first appellate authority and the consequential revisional assessment passed by the assessing authority pursuant to the order of the first appellate authority. Nowhere in the show-cause notice is it stated that the Commissioner is going to revise the original assessment order itself. While so, in the order which is passed by the Commissioner, he has no jurisdiction at all to revise in any way the original assessment order. So it is clear to us, the show-cause notice itself is ill-conceiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot have any impact affecting the assessee. Further, regarding the expenditure on the maintenance and upkeep of the residences of the manager and administrative officer, no doubt what the Commissioner says is that the said manager and administrative officer were also serving other concerns and the expenditure on their salary was shared on a sharing basis at the rate of 30 per cent. from each of the concerns, including the assessee. But this is an absolutely irrelevant consideration. So long as the said manager and administrative officer are residing in the building in question that building has to be maintained and any expenditure incurred regarding the maintenance of the said building, has to be allowed fully when the genuineness of the v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
