RUDRAPPA NINGAPPA GANIJERA Vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition, coming up for preliminary hearing after notice to respondent, is disposed by the following order, the counsel appearing for parties have been heard.

(2.) THE petitioners have impugned in this writ petition, the legality and correctness of the assessment order made by the respondent- Agrl. ITO, Dharwar, under s. 19(4) of the Karnataka Agrl. I.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") For the assessment year 1976-77, the petitioners, not having filed their returns under the Act were served with notices under s. 18(2) read with s. 36 of the Act on more than one occasion. Finally, they appeared before the respondent and produced certain documents. On the basis of the documents produced, and having regard to the evasive tactics adopted by the petitioners. THE respondents issued notice in Form No. 5 prescribed under the Karnataka Agrl. I.T. Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules", proposing to assess the petitioners for tax due in respect of 160 acres of "J" class lands cultivated by them. He estimated the gross income of the petitioners liable to tax at Rs. 26,848 and further proposed to tax 60 per cent. of the said incomn treating the remaining 40 per cent. as expenses incurred for cultivation. He further invited objections to the said proposal by March 19, 1979. THE notice was dated March 8, 1979.

(3.) SHRI M Rama Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has advanced only the contention pleadede by placing reliance on a Division Bench ruling of this court in the case of Mallappa Kallappa Urge v. Agrl. ITO [1973] 91 ITR 529 (Mys.) He has further pointed out that the Rules are silent as to what should happen if the notice issued by the authorities under the Act was not served in time to appear before the authorities on the date specified in the notice. He has, therefore argued that in order to satisfy the requirement of the second proviso to s. 19 of the Act, it is incumbent of the respondent-ITO to issue a fresh notice because what is contemplated under the second proviso to s. 19 of the Act is a reasonable opportunity and not a mere empty formality of issuing notice under s. 19(4) of the Act.