GANESHA AND COMPANY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed under Section 34(1) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income -tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act') against the order passed under Section 32(5) of the Act for the assessment year 1989 -90 (financial year ending on 31 -3 -1989) by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Malnad Division, Shimoga (for short, 'FAA') by which appeal filed under Section 32(1) of the Act was rejected as barred by limitation by Appeal Order No. KAIT.AP. 03/2008 -09, dated 11 -7 -2008. The brief facts relevant to decide the aforesaid matter are these: Assessment order under Section 19(3) of the Act was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (AIT) (Assessment), Chikmagalur on 31 -7 -1996. This order was carried in appeal before FAA in Appeal No. KAIT.AP. 03/2008 -09. The FAA rejected the appeal as barred by limitation for the reason that the appeal against the aforesaid order of assessment was dismissed and against the order of appeal passed by FAA was not appealed before this Tribunal. Consequently, the order of assessment was held to have become final. Secondly, it was observed that the application for rectification under Section 37 of the Act which should be filed within five years from the date of passing the order of appeal was not filed within the above period of limitation. The appeal was finally held as barred by limitation.

(2.) THE aforesaid appeal order passed by FAA is disputed as to its validity in the present appeal. The main grievance of the appellant is that the status of the assessee was required to have been considered as registered partnership firm in the name and style of M/s. Ganesh and Company, Chikmagalur instead of Body of individuals in the name and style of M.L. Vasudeva Murthy and Others, Coffee Planter, Lalithabhandara Estate, Chikmagalur. Among other grounds, the present appeal petition is filed challenging the validity of appeal order passed by FAA.

(3.) IN view of the categorical finding of the FAA in the impugned appeal order that no appeal was filed before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and secondly there was no case for rectification, it became necessary for us to examine and give our findings as to whether the present appeal is maintainable in accordance with facts and law.