TMI Blog1985 (10) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Income-tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 22 of 1957) (" the Act "), before the Agricultural Income-tax Officer who on an examination of the same completed the assessment under the Act on May 28, 1976. In the purported exercise of his powers under section 37 of the Act, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer issued a show-cause notice on February 1, 1978, proposing to rectify his previous assessment order on diverse grounds which was objected to by the petitioner. Unfortunately, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, without realising that there was a period of limitation stipulated in sub-section (7) of section 37 of the Act, made his order as late as on August 19, 198 1, in which he found that there were circumstances warranting rectification an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was made by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer beyond four years from the date of the original assessment order made by him under the Act. Section 37(7) of the Act which prescribes a period of limitation for rectification of the orders made under the Act reads thus: " No amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the date of the order sought to be amended." On the plain language of the section, it is clear that the authority empowered to rectify has to make his order within four years from the date of the original assessment order made under the Act. The plain and clear language of the section imperatively requires the authority to make his order within four years from the date of the original orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the true scope and ambit of sub-section (7) of section 37 of the Act. In Sha Vajeshankar Vasudeva and Co.'s case [1974] 34 STC 257 (Kar), this court was examining a rectification proceeding under section 25A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act of 1957 (the "ST Act"). Section 25A of the Sales-tax Act is not in pari materia or analogous to section 37(7) of the Act. In the very case relied on by Shri Babu, Venkataramiah J. (as his Lordship then was), referring to Subramanya's case [1969] 73 ITR 499 (Mys), distinguished the same as inapplicable to the language of section 25A of the Sales Tax Act. In my view, Sha Vajeshankar Vasudeva and Company's case [1974] 34 STC 257 (Kar) does not really assist Sri Babu to hold that the order is not barred by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
