COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX Vs. RAMKUVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has been stated and three questions of law referred to us by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal under S. 39 of the Maharashtra Agrl. IT Act, 1962 (Maharashtra Act No. XLI of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), the first two at the instance of the Commr. of Agrl. IT. and the third at the instance of the original assessee. These three questions are as follows:

(2.) BEFORE we set out the material facts necessary for understanding the controversy between the parties we may state that the original respondent to this reference, Baijnath Mahadeo Thakur, died pending this reference. He had been assessed to agricultural income tax on the basis that he was he Karta of an HUF, and on his death the members of the said family have been brought on the record of this reference as respondents. We will, therefore, for the sake of convenience hereafter referred to the said Baijnath Mahadeo Thakur as "the assessee". The assessee owned agricultural lands at Vangaon in Taluka Dahanu in the District of Thane. The assessee was being assessed to income tax. It appears that the mamlatdar, Dahanu, gave information to the Sales Tax Officer, Palghar, District Thane, that the agricultural income of the assessee exceeded Rs. 36,000. It may be mentioned that for the purposes of the said Act the State Govt. has constituted the authorities under the Bombay ST. Act, 1959, to be the Agrl. IT. authorities under S. 20 of the said Act. The reason appears to be that having a ready made hierarchy of taxing authorities available, the State Govt. thought it advisable as also practicable to confer upon the same administrative hierarchy the assessment and tax collection functions under the said Act. That this was the underlying object is also apparent from S. 21 of the said Act under which the Tribunal constituted under the said Bombay Sales Tax Act is also to be the Tribunal for the purpose of hearing appeals under the said Act.

(3.) ON receipt of this information, the said STO by his letter dated February 14, 1967, intimated to the assessee the said information and called upon him to attend at the Inspection Bungalow, Dahanu, on February 24, 1967, without fail. The said letter further stated that information regarding agricultural income should be brought by the assessee from April 1, 1961, onwards. In pursuance of the said letter the assessee's nephew attended with the books of account at the Inspection .Bungalow, Dahanu, and those books were inspected by an inspector in the office of the STO, who, as mentioned before, was also the Agrl. ITO. The said Inspector made a report dated February 24, 1967. The said report showed that the turnover of the assessee during the asst. yr. 1961 62 was more than Rs. 36,000. Thereupon the said Agrl. ITO issued to the assessee a notice dated March 7, 1967. In view of the arguments advanced before us, it will be convenient to reproduce the said notice. It is as follows :