SENAIRAM DOONGARMALL Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal. The brief facts are that the plaintiffs No. 1, a Hindu undivided family, has its principal place of business in Tinsukia and plaintiff No. 2, Sri Durga Dutta Lohia, is the managing coparcener and karta of the said family. They own a Tea Garden named "Sewpur Tea Estate". In 1942, the factory buildings, tea-house, labour and staff quarters and other appurtenances thereto were requisitioned and taken possession of by the military authorities under the Defence of India Rules. The authorities remained in position thereof till 1945, when the properties were derequisitioned. The plaintiffs had to maintain the garden but could not carry on the manufacture work on account of requisition. The plaintiffs were paid a sum of Rs. 2,99,224 as compensation money for the loss of crops for the year 1942 in respect of the said garden. The income-tax authorities, after deducting the expenses allowed under the law, assessed the net income at Rs. 69,716 in respect of the aforesaid tea estate. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer, on the basis of this calculation, assessed sixty per cent. of the above sum to agricultural income-tax. Thus a sum of Rs. 5,371-14-0 was demanded as agricultural income-tax from the plaintiffs on account of the said income by an assessment order dated December 23, 1947.

(2.) THE plaintiffs deposited the aforesaid amount in the Government Treasury by a challan dated the 8th May, 1948. For the year 1943 a similar compensation paid by the military authorities was assessed to agricultural income-tax. Against the aforesaid assessment for the year 1943, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and finally a reference was made to the High Court of Assam on various points. This reference was decided by this court on the 19th August, 1952, and it was held by this court that the compensation received from the military authorities did not represent agricultural income and was not assessable as agricultural income. It is on account of this decision that the plaintiffs case is that the realisation of the tax for the year 1942 was illegal and without jurisdiction. THE plaintiffs moved the Government of Assam for refund of the said sum but their prayer was rejected by a letter dated 24th February, 1954. THEreafter, the present suit was filed on the 15th June, 1955, for recovery of the sum of Rs. 6,661-2-0 comprising of the sum of Rs. 5,371-14-0, the principal, and Rs. 1,289-4-0 as interest. THE suit was filed after giving due notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code, on the 5th January, 1955.

(3.) FOR the assessment year 1943-44 plaintiff No. 1 submitted a return for the account period 1942 along with a certified copy of the central assessment order on the basis of which the Agricultural Income-tax Officer made the assessment and the amount was deposited by the plaintiffs without any objection. No appeal was filed against the Central assessment order or against the order of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer. A petition of revision before the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax under section 27 of the Act was however filed after a long time which was rejected. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a petition before the Board of Agricultural Income-tax under section 28 of the Act asking the Board to refer the matter to this court. This petition was rejected. This court was then moved under section 28 of the Act but the petition was rejected.