TMI Blog1989 (7) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nown as "Radharani Tea and Estate in Dooars" and the other known as "Krishna Kali Tea Estate in Assam". The assessment years concerned in the writ application are 1975-76 to 1977-78. It is alleged that on November 17, 1981, the petitioner received three notices under section 154/155 whereby respondent No. 1 proposed to rectify certain alleged mistakes in the assessment order for the said assessment years and was requested by respondent No. 1 to show cause by November 23, 1981. The nature of the mistakes proposed to be rectified will appear from the notices. Thereafter, by a letter dated December 7, 1981, the petitioner is alleged to have pointed out to respondent No. 1 that the three undated notices suffered from various infirmities. Howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at previous year, or owing to the profits and/or gains chargeable being less than the allowance, the allowance or part of the allowance to which effect has not been given shall be carried forward subject to the provisions of section 72(2) and section 73(3) of the Act. Elaborating in detail, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition again on the ground that inasmuch as the separate sheets enclosed with the three impugned notices do not bear any signature and/or seal of respondent No. 1 and the same are not authenticated and/or validated by respondent No. 1, the said three separate sheets are of no effect and as such cannot form part of the impugned notices, There is no mistake in the assessment order dated March 28, 1978, for the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be an obvious, clear and patent mistake. One which is not so apparent and which requires a long and elaborate reasoning and arguments on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions will not be a mistake apparent from the records. The attention of this court has also been drawn to another case, Karimtharuvi Tea Estates Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1963] 48 ITR 83 (SC). It was found by the Supreme Court that the power of the State Legislature to make a law in respect of taxes on agricultural income arising from tea plantations is limited to legislating with respect to the agricultural income determined in accordance with rule 24 of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922, under which income derived from the sale of tea grown and manufactured ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contesting respondents, has, however, submitted that the impugned notices have been issued in accordance with law and the steps taken by the respondents are consistent with the provisions of the law and there is nothing for this writ court to interfere in the matter. He has also argued that the Act is a complete code and the Act provides for complete machinery to challenge an order of assessment. Such assessment orders cannot be challenged by the petitioner under article 226 of the Constitution. He draws inspiration from a judgment of the Supreme Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1983] 142 ITR 663. He has also drawn the attention of the court to another decision in Tata Tea Ltd. v. State of West Bengal [1988] 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been so considered and decided. (2) Subject to the other provisions of this section, the authority concerned (a) may make an amendment under sub-section (1) of its own motion, and (b) shall make such amendment for rectifying any such mistake which has been brought to its notice by the assessee, and where the authority concerned is the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by the Income-tax Officer also. (3) An amendment, which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee, shall not be made under this section unless the authority concerned has given notice to the assessee of its intention so to do and has allowed the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue the impugned notices. The case laws cited at the Bar do not support the contention of the writ petitioner. This court will not consider the merits of the case of the petitioner and quash the notices without allowing the statutory authorities to proceed according to law. Within the scope of section . 154, the acts done and/or caused to have been done by the respondents are found to be well-justified and there is nothing for the writ court to interfere in this matter. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. The rule is discharged and interim order, if any, is vacated. There will be no further costs. As prayed for, there will be stay of operation of this order for a period of two weeks from date. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
