Skip to content


P.R. Gopalakrishna Banninathaya Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Mysore and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 932 of 1961
Judge
Reported in[1963]50ITR449(KAR); [1963]50ITR449(Karn)
ActsMysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957
AppellantP.R. Gopalakrishna Banninathaya
RespondentCommissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Mysore and ors.
Appellant AdvocateK.R.D. Karanth, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateD.M. Chandrasekhar, Government Pleader
Excerpt:
- code of criminal procedure, 1973 [c.a. no. 2/1974]. section 468: [dr. k. bhakthavatsala, j] offence under section 406 of i.p.c., - bar to take cognizance, after lapse of more than 14 years on facts, held, the complainant is not claiming exclusion of time in computing the period of limitation under section 470 cr.p.c. further, the trial court has not passed any order under section 473 cr.p.c. regarding extension of period of limitation. hence, taking cognizance for the offence punishable under section 406 of ipc against the accused by the magistrate is bad in law. impugned order was quashed. - 1. the orders of assessment which are impeached in this writ petition are clearly invalid orders. quite clearly in the family of the petitioner there are more than five members......was more than rs. 7,000. in the family of the petitioner there are more than five members. the assessing authority was wrong in thinking that the mother and wife of the petitioner are not members of his family. under part i of the schedule annexed to the mysore agricultural income-tax act, 1957, it is provided that the limit referred to shall be seven thousand rupees in the case of every hindu undivided family or an aliyasanthana family or branch or a marumakkathayam tarwad or tavazhi including a nambudiri family or any other class governed by the law applicable to nambudiris, which satisfies as at the end of the previous year the condition that it consists of at least five members. the assessing authority wrongly proceeded on the basis that the female members of the family are not.....
Judgment:

1. The orders of assessment which are impeached in this writ petition are clearly invalid orders. They relate to assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61. Admittedly, in none of these years the petitioner's net agricultural income was more than Rs. 7,000. In the family of the petitioner there are more than five members. The assessing authority was wrong in thinking that the mother and wife of the petitioner are not members of his family. Under Part I of the Schedule annexed to the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, it is provided that the limit referred to shall be seven thousand rupees in the case of every Hindu undivided family or an Aliyasanthana family or branch or a Marumakkathayam tarwad or tavazhi including a Nambudiri family or any other class governed by the law applicable to Nambudiris, which satisfies as at the end of the previous year the condition that it consists of at least five members. The assessing authority wrongly proceeded on the basis that the female members of the family are not members of the petitioner's family; quite clearly in the family of the petitioner there are more than five members. Therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay any tax. Hence the levy made on him is an illegal levy.

2. For the reasons mentioned above, the tax levied on the petitioner on his agricultural income above mentioned being illegal, the same is quashed. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //