GEORGE PETER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS batch of eight revisions are connected cases. Identical questions arise for consideration in all of them. T. R. C. No. 140 of 1991, T. R. C. Nos. 11, 14 and 15 of 1993 are filed by one, Dr. George Peter. T. R. C. Nos. 141 of 1991, 12, 13 and 16 of 1993, are filed by one, Shri George Oommen. Dr. George Peter and Shri George Oommen are brothers. They are partners of a registered firm, namely, Good Hope Plantations. The firm originally owned two rubber estates, viz., the New Good Hope Estate and the New Hope Estate. On August 1, 1979, the New Good Hope Estate was partitioned between the two brothers and the firm Good Hope Plantations continued with the New Hope Estate. A settlement deed was brought into existence by Shri George Oommen by which a trust was created. The scope of the trust and other matters connected therewith are in controversy.

(2.) FOR the purpose of this batch of eight revisions, it is sufficient to notice the following facts :

(3.) IN Nelliampathy Tea and Produce Co, Ltd. v. Commr. of Agrl. I. T. [1991] 190 ITR 227, at page 234, a Bench of this court held that the normal period within which an assessment once made can be revised in suo motu revisional proceedings under Section 34 of the Act should not exceed the period fixed under Section 35 or 36 of the Act. Beyond the period contemplated by Section 35 or 36 of the Act, an assessment which has become final, can be revised under Section 34 of the Act only on cogent and sufficient reasons and it should be so demonstrated by the Revenue. At page 234 of the report, the court has held as follows :