DHANKAUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Agricultural ITO assessed the appellants under the provisions of the Rajasthan Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"), for the assessment years 1954-55 to 1959-60 by his separate six assessment orders. THE appellants did not prefer any appeal against the said assessment orders before the Assistant Commissioner as provided by Section 48 of the Act. THEy, however, filed revision applications under Section 52 of the Act whereby they challenged the correctness of the said assessment orders. THEse revision applications came to be disposed of by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, who dismissed all these revision applications holding that they were barred by time.

(2.) BEING aggrieved, the appellants moved this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the quashing of the assessment orders passed by the Agrl. ITO and also for quashing the order of the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, dated January 1, 1966, dismissing the revision applications by a single order. The appellants further prayed that direction be issued to the Additional Commissioner for disposing of the revision applications in accordance with law. The writ petitions came before the learned single judge, Shri V. P. Tyagi as he then was. Before the learned single judge two preliminary objections were raised on behalf of the respondents, namely, (1) that the appellants could not prefer revision applications before the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, under Section 52(2) of the Act as they did not avail of the statutory remedy of appeal provided in the Act against the impugned assessment orders before the Assistant Commissioner; and (ii) that a single petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of separate assessment orders for six years was not maintainable.

(3.) THE Madras High Court while interpreting Section 33A has clearly laid down that the remedies of appeal and revision are alternative and the assessee could avail any one of them. It has been further laid down that merely because the assessee did not file an appeal against the assessment order that by itself will not deprive him of the right to file a revision directly before the Commissioner. We agree with the view taken by the Madras High Court in Sreenivasala's case [1948] 16 ITR 341. THE learned single judge, in our opinion, was in error when he held that the revision cannot be filed directly to the Additional Commissioner without taking recourse to the statutory remedy of appeal provided under Section 48 of the Act. We, therefore, allow this special appeal and set aside the order of the learned single judge and direct that the Additional Commissioner shall decide the revision application according to law.