MARATTI KUTTI NAIK Vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, Mr. Rama Shenoi, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges no doubt the orders of assessment made by the Agricultural Income Tax Officer for the year 1958-'59 under Ext. P. 1 as also two orders levying penalty for non payment of the tax as evidenced by Ext. P. 8 dated 20-8-1960 and Ext. P. 14 dated 30-11-1960. The main contention that is urged by Mr. Rama Shenoi, learned counsel for the petitioner, regarding the assessment as such is that it is arbitrary and the figures mentioned therein are not related to the facts as they exist. There is also a contention that after having rejected the accounts of the petitioner the assessing authority has not issued any pre-assessment notice informing the petitioner of the basis on which he proposed to make a best judgment assessment as has been laid down by several decisions of this court.

(2.) The attack that is made against the order levying penalty under Ext. P. 8 is that the petitioner after filing an appeal has admittedly made a request under Ext. P. 3 dated 9-6-1960 and repeating the same request by subsequent applications made not to treat the petitioner as on default under S.40 of the Agricultural Income Tax Act and it will be seen that the said application, if at all, can be stated to have been negatived by an order passed under Ext. P. 11 dated 10-10-1960, that is, long after the levy of penalty under Ext. P. 8. That is, according to Mr. Rama Shenoi the officer has first to consider the application filed under S.40, according to the principles laid down by this court and after giving it a proper consideration should have given proper directions and it is only after the said application has been disposed of, if at all, there will be a jurisdiction for levying penalty on the ground that the tax has not been paid. It is the grievance of the petitioner that even during the pendency of the application filed by the petitioner under S.40 and without disposing it of, an order levying penalty under Ext. P. 8 has been made.

(3.) Equally, the order under Ext. P. 14 dated 30-11-1960 is resisted by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the order Ext. P. 11 is quite arbitrary without having any regard to the various matters mentioned in the application already filed by the petitioner as well as reasonable hope of the petitioner regarding the possibility of getting relief before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.