TMI Blog1993 (11) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 ("the Act", for short) while considering the return filed by the petitioner. In the process, the first respondent thought it fit to issue a proposition notice pointing out that the petitioner had-estimated the value of the coffee at Rs. 8 per point and the petitioner has not disclosed any definite and specific principle or basis for arriving at this rate of Rs. 8 per point. Consequently, the first respondent proposed to apply rule 9(c) of the Rules which provides for the valuation of points under certain circumstances. According to the first respondent, the rate per point declared by the Coffee Board for the years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 were Rs. 8.60, Rs. 12 and Rs. 8.15, respectivel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, therefore, the assessing authority was justified in invoking rule 9(c). I am of the view that the question raised by the parties is fully covered by the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court which has been followed by this court also while considering the scope of section 20. Section 20(1) reads thus : "20. Power to make provisional assessment in advance of regular assessment.-(I) The Agricultural Income-tax Officer may, at any time after the receipt of a return made under section 18, proceed to make in a summary manner, a provisional assessment of the tax payable by the assessee, on the basis of his return and the accounts and documents, if any, accompanying it, after giving due effect to (i) the allowance referred to in parag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accepted, the assessee is denied the right of appeal against the provisional order of assessment. In Jaipur Udyog Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 799, the Supreme Court was considering the scope of section 141 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which also provides for making an order of provisional assessment. In the said case, the assessing authority recomputed the aggregate losses of earlier years on the basis of the computation in the regular assessments for certain earlier years and he raised a demand based on this recomputation ignoring the computation made by the assessee in its return. The Supreme Court held that it was not open to the Income-tax Officer to reject or ignore the claim of the assessee made in the return, while the Officer was proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t applied the above ratio to section 20 of the Act. In the said case, certain deductions claimed by the assessee were not permitted by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer under section 20. This order was set aside by this court and the Bench pointed out (at page 510) that: ". . . . The scheme of section, 20(1) of the Act being similar to section 141 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessing authority has power only to call upon an assessee to pay tax provisionally on what he admits as his taxable income. " In fact, the application of rule 9(c) to the facts of any case cannot be resorted to as a matter of course by the assessing authority. Certain jurisdictional facts shall have to be established before attracting the said rule as pointed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
