AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. THAYYIL PLANTATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal arises from the judgment of the learned single judge in O. P. No. 5386 of 1989. The appellants are the agricultural income-tax authorities, who are the respondents in the original petition. The respondent herein is the writ petitioner who is an assessee under the Agricultural Income-tax Act (for short, "the Act").

(2.) THE main question that came up for consideration before the learned single judge is whether the provisions contained in Section 36 of the Act to rectify mistakes take in their sweep the authority to change the status "registered firm" to that of "unregistered firm". THE learned single judge after interpreting the provisions came to the following conclusion : "THE Agricultural Income-tax Officer exercising the authority to rectify mistakes under Section 36 of the Act has no jurisdiction to alter the status of the assessee from "registered firm" to that of "unregistered firm". THE above conclusion is challenged in the present writ appeal.

(3.) THE question is whether the order allowing the application for renewal of registration of the firm would constitute the "records" within the meaning of the provisions contained in Section 36 of the Act. THE learned judge came to the conclusion that the rectification of errors which does not relate to assessment, is beyond the authority granted by Section 36 of the Act. THE learned judge further observed that the Agricultural Income-tax Officer who alters the status of an assessee from "registered firm" to "unregistered firm" does not rectify a mistake in the assessment. We see no reason to differ from the above conclusions of the learned judge. We are particularly persuaded to agree with the aforesaid conclusions for the reason that the appellants have no doubt about the genuineness of the firm. THE respondent is already a "registered firm" and the only question is with regard to the order passed on the application for renewal of registration. As pointed out earlier one of the partners of the firm who was then out of India had not personally signed the application but signed through her constituted attorney. No defect in the application for renewal was pointed out when it was filed. This application was considered by the officer who took a decision to allow the renewal. THE order thus passed under Rule 6 is in force. It is not varied or altered by any higher authority. Now the officer wants to change the above decision as he now holds a different opinion. 'In substance, therefore, what is sought to be done in this case now is not rectification of a mistake but substitution of a different opinion. This cannot be done under Section 36. Unless the order allowing the renewal is so altered, the status of firm cannot be substituted as "unregistered firm". As long as the order allowing the renewal of registration stands, there is no error "apparent" on the records, even assuming the application for renewal is part of the record of the assessment. THE judgment of the learned single judge in the circumstances of the case, we feel, does not call for any interference.