TMI Blog1977 (3) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.83 standard acres only. In reducing the holding of the petitioner, the second respondent deducted an extent of 35.47 ordinary acres stated to have been given to the petitioner's two minor sons and three minor daughters under the partition deed dated March 26, 1969. For the assessment year 1970-71, in view of this mistake, the petitioner was called upon to pay the tax of Rs. 14.96 only and a similar order was repeated for the assessment year 1971-72. On a further scrutiny of the records relating to the petitioner's holding, the second respondent came to know that the permission to compound the tax on an extent of 8.83 standard acres only after deducting the lands stated to have been parted with under the partition deed dated March 26, 1969 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent revised the assessment for the years 1970-71 and 1971-72, by his orders dated December 18, 1972. As per the revised order under section 65 read with section 35, the petitioner was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 308.44 for each of the assessment years in question. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner preferred the revision petitions to the first respondent, the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Madras. The first respondent, after giving a personal hearing to the chartered accountant who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, dismissed the revision petitions by a common order dated October 31, 1973. It is to quash these orders, the present writ petitions have been preferred. Writ Petition No. 1749 of 1974 relates to the assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he submissions. This is a case in which there was originally an order of assessment on a composition basis. The respondents are wanting to revise that assessment for which purpose a notice was issued under section 35. Merely because the petitioner had given his consent that will not give jurisdiction to the authority to reopen the assessment. It can be done only if a case has been made out for such a reopening. In other words, the jurisdiction to revise itself would arise only if the original order was wrong and the further discovery has enabled the authority to revise. In this case it is the partition deed which is sought to be ignored, on the ground that the daughters have been married off, and that, therefore, it would amount to a transf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
