ANANTHA MALLAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common question raised by these two writ petitions is, whether the Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax can decide, under S.34 of the Agricultural Income Tax Act, No. XXII of 1950, hereafter referred to as the Act, the objections he himself has raised against the appellate judgments of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner The two petitioners seek to vacate different orders; but the issue raised in each is similar, and, therefore, the petitions been consolidated for purposes of deciding the issue.

(2.) The facts in O. P. 1088/59, are that the writ petitioner had been assessed to the tax on income from properties belonging to his family, which the Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Alleppey, had found for the assessment year 1957-'58, to be Rs. 4,135/-. The petitioner claiming to be the son, who had been recently called upon due to the father's death in December, 1955, to manage the properties, appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax, Trivandrum, objected to the amount of the tax assessed by the officer, and sought further deductions that were available to a member of a Hindu joint family. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, after having inspected the properties, found the taxable income to be Rs. 2,796-8-0; and accordingly cancelled the assessment, because the income was found below the assessable minimum. The order is dated June 21, 1958, but the writ petitioner was served with notice of February 20, 1959, intimating the Commissioner's opinion of the aforesaid appellate order being not based on proper grounds, the case being fit for revision, and asking the writ petitioner to file his objection. The aforesaid notice was under S.34 of the Act; and the Commissioner, after hearing the petitioner's advocate, set aside the appellate order, restoring assessment by the Agricultural Income Tax Officer. The Commissioner's order is dated June 4, 1959, and is attacked on several grounds. Apart from the challenge to the constitutionality of the Act, which has not been pressed before us, one ground is that the order is illegal without jurisdiction, opposed to principles of natural justice, malafide and in abuse of power vested in the Commissioner.

(3.) The facts in O. P. 1098/59, can also be briefly narrated. The agricultural income taxes have been levied in this case on the net income of Rs. 5,464/- in the assessment year 1954-55 and on Rs. 4,078-8-0 in the assessment year 1955-56. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Trivandrum, had set aside the assessments, and remanded the cases for fresh disposal and inquiry. After detailed inquiry and scrutiny, the Agricultural Income Tax Officer again estimated the incomes to be what he had found earlier, and the cases came on appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who cancelled the assessments and allowed the appeals after having inspected the properties. In these eases as well the Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax thought it necessary to issue notice under S.34 of the Act; and, by order of June 14, 1959, set aside the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order having restored those of the Agricultural Income Tax Officer. The ground is that the inspection, having been made four years after the initial assessments, could not due to influx of time, afford any material for judging what had been the income at the time of the initial order. The Commissioner has further directed that, as the Agricultural Income Tax Officer had made assessment for 1958-59 on the basis of the appellate orders for 1954-55 and 1955-56, which orders have been set aside, that assessment is also set aside, and the cases be remanded for fresh disposal according to law. In this writ petition, the complaint is that S.34 of the Act is subject to the other provisions of the Act, and appeals having been provided against orders by ' the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, should the Commissioner be aggrieved by the appellate orders. He ought to have directed the Income Tax Officer to file appeal before the Appellate Tribunal instead of deciding such grievances by exercise of his revisory powers under the aforesaid S.34.