M A MAMMOO DECD Vs. DEPUTY CAIT ST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question referred for our decision in these references is as follows :

(2.) THE three assessment years in these references are 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. Initially, the assessment was completed under Section 18(3) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer. THE orders were passed on June 24, 1974, July 14, 1975, and July 2, 1976, respectively for the above years. It appears that documents Nos. 210 and 211 of 1972 dated February 19, 1972, required the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, North Zone, Kozhi-kode, to exercise powers under Section 34 of the Act--suo motu revision. This was initiated on the basis of the notice dated January 3, 1982, in view of the position that according to Section 9(2)(a)(iii) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, income for the purpose of assessment of a wife or minor child of an assessee, arising directly or indirectly as a result of the transfer by the above documents required the exercise of such power.

(3.) AS a consequence thereof, resort to the provisions of Section 34 of the Act is sought be justified by the Deputy Commissioner placing reliance on the Full Bench decision of this court in Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1979] 44 STC 208, to the effect that so long as the grounds for exercise of power under Section 34 of the Act are made out showing that the initial order was vitiated with illegality, irregularity or impropriety, such an exercise of powers under Section 34 of the Act gets justification.