J KURIAN Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AGRL ADDL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a non-resident Indian. He holds agricultural lands in Kerala, in the name of Grace Estate in Amar-ambalam which is mainly a rubber plantation. PETITIONER was employed in Kuwait. According to him, his brother's wife, Marykutty, was looking after the affairs of his estate during the years relevant to the assessment years 1979-80 to 1982-83. He states, however, that the assessing authority, namely, the first respondent, had completed the assessments under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 ("the Act" for short), on the income from the petitioner's lands, without notice to the petitioner but after treating one M.P. George, the 4th respondent, as the petitioner's agent for purposes of assessment. This, according to the petitioner, is not correct as he had neither employed the 4th respondent nor received any agricultural income at any time through the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent had nothing to do with the estate of the petitioner, so states the petitioner. Pursuant to these assessments, copies of which have not been produced along with the original petition, an amount of Rs. 45,448.70 is being demanded and proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act initiated for recovery. The petitioner challenges the proceedings leading to the issue of the notice under the Revenue Recovery Act and seeks to quash the same.

(2.) PETITIONER's first contention is that M.P. George was not his agent and, secondly, he says that if M.P. George was his agent, the entire amount due should be recovered from him. Section 11 of the Act is referred to in this connection.

(3.) I do not, therefore, find any reason to quash the assessments forming the basis of the revenue recovery proceedings, even assuming that it is possible, despite the fact that copies thereof have not been produced as annexures to this original petition.