TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1957) (" the Act "), before the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Dharwar (A.I.T.O.), for which reason that officer issued them a notice under section 18(2) of the Act, calling upon them to file their return, to which also they did not respond. In that view, the A.I.T.O. issued a proposition notice to the petitioners under section 19(4) of the Act, on December 5, 1977, fixing the date of hearing as December 14, 1977, which was however served on them only on December 30, 1977. But the A.I.T.O., without noticing the non-service of the said notice on the petitioners before the hearing date, completed a best judgment assessment against them on December 27, 1977 (Ex. B) under the Act. Against the said order of the A.I.T.O., the petitioners moved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r passed therein by any authority subordinate to him is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. " This section in terms does not provide for a revision to an assessee who is aggrieved by an order made under the Act. On the other hand, this section only confers a suo motu power of revision on the Commissioner and that too when he finds that the order of his subordinate is prejudicial t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , we find no ground to hold otherwise. When once we hold that the proposition notice had not been served on the petitioners oil or before the hearing date fixed in it, it necessarily follows that it was not open to the A.I.T.O. to complete his assessment before the actual service of that notice on the petitioners and giving them necessary opportunity to file their objections and state their case. Without any doubt, the procedure adopted by the A.I.T.O. is in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the principles of natural justice. From this, it follows that the original assessment order made by the A.I.T.O., which is manifestly illegal, is liable to be quashed. Sri Rajendra Babu suggests that the petitioners be directed to fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
