KAUSALYA SANTHANAM Vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the above three writ petitions had been filed by the same petitioner. In respect of her land holdings, the petitioner had applied for composition under Section 65 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, year after year. In respect of the assessment year 1966-67, there was an order of composition passed on June 16, 1966, on an application made by the petitioner on June 8, 1966. Once an order of composition is made, that will enure for a period of three years under Section 65. Therefore, though the order of composition was passed on June 16, 1966, for the assessment year 1966-67, it will enure for three assessment years ending with the assessment year 1968-69. However, the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, after issuing a show-cause notice to the petitioner as to why the order of composition should not. be cancelled and after getting an explanation from the petitioner, had cancelled the said order of composition dated June 16, 1966, by his order, dated August 11, 1972. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the said order of the Commissioner. Subsequent to the said impugned order of cancellation the assessing authority has naturally to proceed to assess the petitioner's agricultural income for the years 1966-67 and 1967-68, which had expired by the time the Commissioner's order came to be passed. For the assessment year 1966-67, the agricultural income of the petitioner was computed on best judgment basis at Rs. 13,495.30. For the assessment year 1967-68, her income was computed on the same best judgment basis at Rs. 14,263.70. Since the petitioner has questioned the order of the Commissioner cancelling the order of composition, she has, naturally, questioned the consequential orders passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 on the ground that, as the order of the Commissioner cancelling the composition order is bad, the consequential orders of assessment passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer have to be set aside.

(2.) THE Writ Petitions Nos. 1897 of 1973 and 1896 of 1973 are against the assessment orders passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1966-67 and 1967-68, respectively, and Writ Petition No. 1898 of 1973 is directed against the Commissioner's order cancelling the order of composition earlier passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer.

(3.) IN a recent decision in M. O. A. Rahman Sait v. Commissioner of Agricultural INcome-tax [1978] 111 ITR 226 (Mad), Koshal J, has also taken the view that since the assessment year commenced on the first of April, 1966, the amendment brought in by Tamil Nadu Act 7 of 1966, will not stand attracted unless for the assessment year 1966-67 it has been made specifically retrospective.