CHERMANA P I Vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, the petitioner filed his returns under the Karnataka agricultural Income tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 22 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Virajpet, Coorg District (hereinafter referred to as the AITO), who on their examination, completed the assessments and recovered the taxes due thereon also. Some time thereafter, the AITO by two separate but similar notices dated November 22, 1976, (Exhibits A and B) purporting to be under s. 36 of the Act, called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the agricultural income derived from the lands standing in the names of his four sons should not be included in his income for the aforesaid assessment years as escaped income with penalties thereon, under s. 22 of the Act. In answer to those notices, the petitioner filed objections, inter alia, contending that the properties had been separately purchased by his sons in the year 1962-63 and there was no income which escaped assessment so as to reopen previous assessments completed under the Act. But, the AITO by two separate but indentical order made on November 19, 1977 (Exhibits C and D), overruled the objection of the petitioner, brought to tax the income derived by his four sons, and issued consequent demand notices (Exhibits E and F) also levying penalties. In these petitions under art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the show-cause notices, the assessment orders and the demand notices issued by the AITO.

(2.) SRI N. Santhosh Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the AITO was incompetent to examine and decide the validity of sale transactions under the Act and to include the income of the sons of his client in the agricultural income of the petitioner.

(3.) IN the other order for the subsequent assessment year, the AITO has passed a similar order.