I N SUNDRESH Vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of preliminary hearing after notice to respondent. The Counsel for parties have been heard.

(2.) The petitioner is a Coffee Planter and an assessee under the Karnataka Agricultural Income Tax Act 1967, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In accordance with the return filed by him, he was assessed by the Agricultural Income Tax Officer-respondent, in accordance with the order dated 31-8-1978. Thereafter, by a notice dated 16-8-1980 the respondent-Agricultural Income Tax Officer, I Circle, Chickamagalur, called upon the petitioner to show cause why the order of assessment concluded on 31-8-1978 for the assessment year 1978-79 should not be rectified in respect of four matters. In the notice, it was indicated that depreciation had not been calculated correctly, as a result of which, a sum of Rs. 8,157 came to be allowed on the declared value of the car at Rs. 32,614 at 25 per cent of such value whereas the assessee -petitioner was entitled to only 10 per cent depreciation. Secondly, the assessee was intimated that the sale proceeds of the car belonging to 'the estate sold and the profits therefrom had not been subjected to tax. Therefore, it was liable to tax and the assessee should furnish the sale amount realised with proof. Thirdly, it was pointed out to the assessee that vehicle expenses allowed in the sum of Rs. 30,273-69 used for purpose of estate work, was not correct as in the previous years only half the expenditure incurred was allowed. Fourthly, it was pointed out to the assessee that rectification was required in respect of Life Insurance Policy allowance of Rs, 10,000 as the same was in excess and contrary to law. The assessee was given seven days time to file his objections to the proposed rectification. The assessee by his letter dated 14th October 1980, which is at Annexure-D to the petition, contended that the depreciation on the car had been correctly calculated; that there was no profit on the sale of the old car; that the car was entirely used as the estate maintenance vehicle and therefore there was nothing wrong in allowing the full expenditure on the maintenance of the car as deductible item and in so far as the Life Insurance Policy was concerned, he did not show any specific cause.

(3.) Therefore, the respondent-Agricultural Income Tax Officer passed an order of rectification under S. 37 of the Act, allowing only 10 per cent depreciation on the car and also reduced the expenditure of car maintenance allowed to be deducted earlier by half, thus giving credit only to Rs. 15,136 instead of Rs. 30,273-69. He also added back the sum of Rs. 4,129 disallowing the deduction which had been permitted in the previous assessment year in respect of the car sold by the assessee in the assessment year 1977-78. Similarly, he re-calculated the Life Insurance Policy rebate and added back a sum of Rs. 3,237 to the taxable income. In the result, the assessee was called upon to pay Rs. 13240 as balance of tax. Aggrieved by the rectification order which is at Annexure-E to the petition, the petitioner has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution inter alia contending that the order is patently erroneous and without jurisdiction and therefore it is liable to be set aside.