KRISHNA BHAT Vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an assessee to Agricultural Income Tax on the file of the first respondent, the Agricultural Income Tax Officer, I Circle, Kasaragod. Respondents 2 and 3 respectively are the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax, Cannanore, and the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax, Kozhikode. The prayer in the writ petition is for quashing Exts. P-5, P-6, P-7, P-8 and P-10 orders. Exts P-5, P-6 and P-7 respectively are the three assessment orders passed by the first respondent against the petitioner for the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1974-75. Ext. P-8 is the common order dated 29-3-1975 passed by the second respondent, disposing of the appeals filed against Exts. P-5, P-6 and P-7 orders. Ext. P-10 is the order passed by the 3rd respondent on 11-8-1977 disposing of the revisions filed against Ext. P-8 order.

(2.) The facts relevant for the purpose of this writ petition could be briefly stated as follows: The petitioner and his six sons purchased certain properties as per document No. 1517/61 dated 28-8-1961 for a sum of Rs. 63,000/-. In the assessment orders for the years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69 the petitioner was assessed as an individual. Against the assessment orders the petitioner preferred appeals which were disposed of by a common order dated 30-5-1973, a copy of which has been produced and marked in the writ petition as Ext. P-1. By Ext. P-1 order the second respondent set aside the assessment orders and remanded the matter to the first respondent directing him to conduct a detailed enquiry regarding the source of funds for the purchase of the property as per the document and to assign to the petitioner the correct status as per the Agricultural Income Tax Act. The first respondent thereafter conducted a detailed enquiry and passed Exts. P-2 to P-4 revised assessment orders for the assessment years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69 whereunder the petitioner and his children were held to be tenants in common, each entitled to a 1/7 share in the properties acquired under the deed of 1961. Assessment orders for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, however, were passed by the first respondent treating the petitioner as an individual. These assessment orders were taken up in appeal, and from the averments made in Para.4 of the counter affidavit it is seen that the second respondent has remanded the matter to the first respondent by his order dated 5-9-1977. It was when the appeals against the assessment orders for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 were pending that assessment orders for the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1974-75 were passed by the first respondent as per Exts. P-5 to P-7 treating the petitioner and his children as an association of individuals. Against these orders appeals were preferred by the petitioner, and they were disposed of by the second respondent by Ext. P-8 order dated 29-3-1976, holding that the petitioner was to be treated as an individual and the income derived by his minor children should be added to his income and assessed as in his hands. Against this order the petitioner preferred revisions before the third respondent who disposed them of by Ext. P-10 order dated 11-8-1977 confirming Ext. P-8 order passed by the second respondent. In this writ petition, as has already been stated, the challenge is directed against Exts. P-5, P-6, P-7, P-8 and P-10 orders.

(3.) Sri U. P. Kunikullaya, the counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned orders have been passed by the respondents without any legal basis whatsoever and in violation of settled principles regarding the manner in which status of the assessee has to be assigned. His contention is that in pursuance of the remand order Ext. P-1, passed by the second respondent, the first respondent, while passing Exts. P-2 to P-4 orders and assigning the status of tenants in common to the parties, had considered all aspects of the matter in depth and had also conducted proper investigation including enquiry in the locality. His argument, therefore, is that, though the principles of res judicata may not strictly apply to tax proceedings, the Agricultural Income Tax Officer is not entitled to capriciously decide the status of the assessee departing from the position accepted during the previous years unless there is additional material warranting such a departure. Reliance was placed on the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Sankaralinga Nadar (T.M.M.) & Brothers v. Commissioner of Income Tax (AIR 1930 Madras 209), wherein at page 214 of the report it has been stated as follows: