JIFFIRI AND KAREEM Vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) THE petitioner is a firm and an assessee on the file of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Kozhikode, for the assessment year 1978-79 (year ending March 31, 1978). THE petitioner's assessment was completed under Section 18(3) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act (for short "the Act"), by order March 27, 1984. THE assessment order and the demand notice were despatched and were served on the petitioner only on July 20, 1984, that is, long thereafter. A copy of the said order is produced as exhibit P-1. THE petitioner preferred an appeal against exhibit P-l proceedings contending that the disallowance of certain expenses were not proper. THE appellate authority modified exhibit P-l by his order dated October 3, 1985. THEreafter, a revised order was passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer on January 25, 1989, determining the total agricultural income at Rs. 2,99,876.20 as against Rs. 3,52,108 fixed originally in exhibit P-l order. Against exhibit P-l order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Trivandrum, under exhibit P-2, dated November 29, 1988. It was contended that the assessment order, exhibit P-1, was served on the petitioner only on July 20, 1984, though it is dated March 27, 1984, and hence barred by limitation. THEre were other contentions also regarding the disallowance of labour charges for manuring, etc. THE Commissioner, by his proceedings dated July 18, 1989, in a common order for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, remanded the case to the Agricultural Income-tax Office, Kozhikode, with a direction to dispose of it according to law. A copy of the common order in Agricultural Income-tax Revision Petitions Nos. 144 and 145 of 1989 is produced and marked as exhibit P-3. THEreafter, the petitioner filed a petition dated August 27, 1989, for rectifying the mistakes in exhibit P-3, namely, that no specific finding was given regarding the ground that the assessment was barred by limitation. A copy of the said petition is produced and marked as exhibit P-4. THE petitioner has also filed a reference application under Section 60 of the Act to draw up a statement of the case and refer it to the High Court, which is marked as exhibit P-5. THE Commissioner, by his order dated December 2, 1989, dismissed the same under exhibit P-6.

(3.) A perusal of the order of the Commissioner under exhibit P-3 would show that the Commissioner has not decided the issues raised by the petitioner and has left open all the issues to be agitated afresh before the assessing authority. The Commissioner, in his order dated December 2, 1989 (exhibit P-6), which was filed as a rectification application under Section 36 of the Act as well as the reference application under Section 60 of the Act against the Revision Orders Nos. 144 and 145 of 1989 which were filed against the assessment orders for the years 1978-79 and 1979-80, has extracted the grounds raised in the two revisions filed by the petitioner. The question of limitation has been raised as ground No. 7 for the assessment year 1979-80. It is stated in ground No. 7 that the assessment is barred by limitation. The Commissioner has also extracted other grounds raised by the petitioner in the revisions. The Commissioner was of the view that since the petitioner has raised many grounds which actually necessitated a detailed verification of the basic records, receipts, vouchers, etc., at the lower level, he has remanded the matter to the lower authority. The applicability of Section 35(2) on an assessment under Section 18(4) was also left open to be decided by the lower authority. Since the Commissioner has remitted the entire matter for a re-examination of the whole facts, I am of the view that an interference with such an order is not warranted at this stage. As pointed out by the Commissioner, the petitioner is also free to raise any other new grounds along with the grounds raised earlier. I make it clear that the assessing authority shall decide the specific ground raised by the petitioner with regard to the limitation issue. It is the petitioner's case that the assessment order was communicated to him only on July 20, 1984, that is, beyond the period of five years as provided under Section 35(2) of the Act. The assessing authority shall consider this specific issue with reference to the records and decide the same on the merits.