Skip to content


Murgeppa Rudrappa Gugwad and anr. Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Bijapur and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 1602 of 1967
Judge
Reported in[1970]77ITR211(KAR); [1970]77ITR211(Karn)
ActsMysore Agrl. Income Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 19(4)
AppellantMurgeppa Rudrappa Gugwad and anr.
RespondentAgricultural Income-tax Officer, Bijapur and anr.
Appellant AdvocateK.S. Srinivasa Iyer, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS.R. Rajasekharamurthy, Adv.
Excerpt:
- section 149; [ram mohan reddy, j] compensation - claimants were passengers in the goods carriage and not loaders appeal against fastening liability on the insurance company held, the motor vehicle in question, indisputably a goods carriage, meant for carrying goods and not passengers in which the 1st respondent /claimant travelled and sustained injuries. it is for the insured owner of the vehicle to make good the compensation and no liability could be fastened on the appellant / insurer. - under section 19(4) of the act, before making a best of show cause as to why he should not be assessed in accordance with that provision, and it is not disputed before us that such an opportunity was not afforded to the assessee......hindu undivided family. 2. for the assessment year 1962-63, the petitioners were served with the notice of demand, annexure 'b'. the case of the petitioners is that before issuing such a notice of demand, they were not served with a notice of the assessment as required by section 31 of the mysore agricultural income-tax act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the 'act' and also that an opportunity contemplated under section 19(4) of the act had not been afforded to them before making the assessment in question. under section 19(4) of the act, before making a best of show cause as to why he should not be assessed in accordance with that provision, and it is not disputed before us that such an opportunity was not afforded to the assessee. but sri rajasekharamurthy, the learned counsel.....
Judgment:

Venkataswami, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against a notice of demand of agricultural income-tax issued to two brothers who constitute members of a joint Hindu family. It is not disputed that one of them had submitted the return as the 'karta' of the Hindu undivided family.

2. For the assessment year 1962-63, the petitioners were served with the notice of demand, annexure 'B'. The case of the petitioners is that before issuing such a notice of demand, they were not served with a notice of the assessment as required by section 31 of the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' and also that an opportunity contemplated under section 19(4) of the Act had not been afforded to them before making the assessment in question. Under section 19(4) of the Act, before making a best of show cause as to why he should not be assessed in accordance with that provision, and it is not disputed before us that such an opportunity was not afforded to the assessee. But Sri Rajasekharamurthy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue, submits that after the return was filed, an opportunity as the one contemplated under section 19(2) was afforded to the petitioners and the assessment in question had been made under section 19(3) of the Act. Sri Srinivasa Iyer, the learned counsel appearing in support of the writ petition, submits that it is really an assessment made under section 19(4) of the Act, without complying with the requirements of that sub-section. Section 19(4) of the Act requires the assessing authority to issue a proposition notice and call upon the assessee to explain or show cause against an assessment sought to be made on that basis. Sri Rajasekharamurthy was unable to point out that such an opportunity was in fact afforded to the petitioners. This being the position, both the assessment and the subsequent notice of demand cannot be supported. They are accordingly quashed. The assessing authority is, however, at liberty to proceed with the assessment in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.


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