Skip to content


Padmanabha Narayana Khadilkar Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Puttur - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 2258 of 1967
Judge
Reported in[1970]77ITR208(KAR); [1970]77ITR208(Karn)
ActsMysore Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 37, 67 and 67(6)
AppellantPadmanabha Narayana Khadilkar
RespondentAgricultural Income-tax Officer, Puttur
Appellant AdvocateS.P. Bhat, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS.R. Rajasekharamurthy, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....was delay, the reinstatement is not ordered, but the respondent is required to be compensated. in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation rs.75,000/- was granted. - he submitted that the assessment be made to the best of judgment......section 67 of the mysore agricultural income-tax act, 1957, hereinafter called the act. on that application composition was granted by order made on august 6, 1963, by the respondent under section 67(4) of the act. pursuant to the said order, the petitioner paid the compounding fee as mentioned in the order of composition. on august 2, 1966, the agricultural income-tax officer, shimoga circle, issued a notice to the petitioner stating that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of composition under the act since the computed acreage of the eight class of land exceeds 150 acres and therefore the petitioner was directed to submit within one week from the date of receipt of the notice a return in form no. 3 disclosing his income for the year 1963-64. the petitioner sent a reply on.....
Judgment:

Govinda Bhat, J.

1. This writ petition preferred under article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of assessment dated 30th June, 1967, and a notice of demand of the same date issued by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Puttur, South Kanara District - the respondent in the above petition. The petitioner is an agriculturist owning areca and coconut gardens in Mundaje Village of Belthangady Taluk in the District of South Kanara. For the assessment year 1963-64, the petitioner filed an application for composition of tax under section 67 of the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the Act. On that application composition was granted by order made on August 6, 1963, by the respondent under section 67(4) of the Act. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner paid the compounding fee as mentioned in the order of composition. On August 2, 1966, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Shimoga Circle, issued a notice to the petitioner stating that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of composition under the Act since the computed acreage of the eight class of land exceeds 150 acres and therefore the petitioner was directed to submit within one week from the date of receipt of the notice a return in Form No. 3 disclosing his income for the year 1963-64. The petitioner sent a reply on August 11, 1966, stating that he has not maintained accounts in a presentable form for the year 1963-64 and therefore unable to file the return. He submitted that the assessment be made to the best of judgment. On March 21, 1967, the respondent sent a notice to the petitioner to show cause why the petitioner's agricultural income for the year 1963-64 should not be computed at Rs. 45,800. The petitioner sent a reply on March 31, 1967, and a further reply on April 22, 1967, in which he contended that in view of the order of composition made on August 6, 1963, the respondent is not entitled to make a regular assessment of the petitioner's income. Overruling the protest of the petitioner, the respondent made on order of assessment on 30th June, 1967, by which a tax of Rs. 7,844.14 was levied and a demand notice for the payment of the said amount of tax was issued to the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner has approached this court for relief under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S. P. Bhat, is that the composition of tax made under section 67 of the Act not having been set aside or revoked and so long as that order of composition is operative, the respondent has no jurisdiction to make a regular assessment to tax under the Act. Section 67 of the Act enables any person who derives agricultural income from land not exceeding 150 acres in extent of the eight class of land or an extent equivalent thereto consisting of any one or more of the classes of land specified in Part II of the Schedule, to compound the agricultural income-tax and super-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lump sum at the rates specified in sub-section (2). The application has to be submitted in the prescribed form and the prescribed officer after satisfying himself that the particulars specified in the application are correct may, by order in writing, grant the permission. Where permission is granted under sub-section (4) of section 67, such permission shall be in force for the year for which it is granted and in respect of that period, the provisions of the Act regarding the submission of the returns, accounts or other documents, the assessment to agricultural income-tax or any other matter incidental thereto shall not apply in relation to the grantee : vide sub-section (4) of section 67. The effect of sub-section (6) of section 67 is that where permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by any person under the Act is granted, he is exempted from regular assessment under the Act.

3. In the instant case the petitioner made the application to compound the agricultural income-tax and that application was granted by order dated August 6, 1963. The petitioner paid the amount for compounding the tax. There is no order validly made revoking or setting aside the order of composition dated August 6, 1963. So long as the order of composition stands, the petitioner is exempt from regular assessment to tax by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 67. The impugned assessment order states that with a view to rectify the mistake in regard to the grant of composition, a notice was issued on August 2, 1966, under section 37 of the Act and the petitioner was called upon to file a return. The assessment order nowhere states that the order of composition has been revoked or set aside. There is no order placed before us by which the order of composition granted in favour of the petitioner has been validly revoked.

4. In the result, this writ petitioner succeeds and the impugned order of assessment and notice of demand are hereby quashed. No Costs.

5. Petition allowed.


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