LUCY KOCHUVAREED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WAS delivered by : GOVINDAN NAIR J. The Commissioner of Agricultural Income -tax, Board of Revenue (Taxes), Trivandrum, has stated a case and referred the following question for our decision :

(2.) THE facts necessary for answering the question may be state. One Shri T. V. Kochuvareed was assessed to agricultural income -tax for the years 1959 -60 and 1960 -61. The assessee had claimed expenses towards the upkeep and maintenance of immature rubber plants, the agricultural income taxed having been derived from a rubber plantation. The Agricultural Income -tax Officer disallowed, out of such expenses claimed by the assessee, a sum of Rs. 2,500 for the year 1959 -60, and a sum of Rs. 3,500 for the year 1960 -61. Thereafter, on March 13, 1963, the Commissioner of Agricultural Income -tax issued a notice (appendix A to the statement of the case) under section 34 of the Agricultural Income -tax Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), proposing to revise suo motu, the assessments for the years 1959 -60 and 1960 -61. He stated the reason for the proposal to be that the computation of expenses pertaining to immature rubber plants was too low and that it had resulted in income having 'escaped assessment'. This notice was issued to the widow then moved this court by O. P. No. 877 of 1963 for quashing the notice and one of us allowed the petition by his judgment dated September 4, 1964. However, in appeal by the department, it was held that the question must first be dealt with by the Commissioner and the Commissioner was directed to do so. The right of the petitioner in the original petition to approach this court afresh in appropriate proceedings, if she was aggrieved by the orders passed by the Commissioner, was also reserved. Thereafter, the assessee filed an objection to the notice dated March 13, 1963, on February 18, 1966 (appendix B to the statement of the case). There was a further notice (appendix C) and a further reply (appendix D). The assessee contended in her replies to the notices that the power of revision vested in the Commissioner under section 34 of the Act could not be invoked for the purpose of assessing income that had escaped assessment and that such income could be assessed only by resorting to the procedure under section 35 or section 36 of the Act. The Commissioner, it was urged, could at best give only a direction to the Agricultural Income -tax Officer, on whom specific powers have been conferred by section 35, to reassess and thus tax income that had escaped assessment. Such direction, it was further urged, could not be given after the expiry of the period provided by section 35, namely, three years from the end of the financial year for which the agricultural income was first assessed.

(3.) IN the application under section 60(2) of the Act the assessee had requested that three questions be referred (vide page 2 of the paper book) to this court for its decision. The Commissioner, however, has referred only the question that we have read.