1984 (7) TMI 4 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of Agricultural Income-tax Assessment Orders for 1976-77 Upheld

The Court upheld the validity of assessment orders Exhibit P-1 and P-2 under the Agricultural Income-tax Act for the year 1976-77. It ruled that the ... Agricultural Income Tax, Revision Issues:Assessment under Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 for the year 1976-77, legality of orders Exhibit P-1 and P-2, violation of natural justice, attack on section 34, 2nd proviso, ultra vires and violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India.Analysis:The petitioner, an assessee to agricultural income-tax, challenged the assessment orders Exhibit P-1 and P-2 for the year 1976-77, alleging they were illegal and violated natural justice. The petitioner contended that objections were not considered before passing Exhibit P-1, and no notice or hearing was provided before passing Exhibit P-2. Additionally, the petitioner attacked section 34, 2nd proviso, of the Agricultural Income-tax Act as ultra vires and violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India, arguing that the revisional authority should have heard her before passing any prejudicial order. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that due notice and opportunities were given to the petitioner, and she failed to avail them. They contended that the 2nd proviso to section 34 is not ultra vires or violative of article 14.The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, particularly section 34, which deals with revision. It was established through legal precedents that an order is prejudicial to the assessee only if it worsens their position. The Court clarified the distinction between appeal and revision, emphasizing that revision does not involve a complete rehearing of the case but ensures the decision is according to law. The discretionary power of the Commissioner under section 34 was highlighted, emphasizing that the Commissioner is not bound to interfere if the order is in accordance with the law.The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the second proviso to section 34 is ultra vires or violates article 14, stating that it does not abrogate the provision for hearing or reasonable opportunity under section 34(1). The Court reviewed the files related to the assessment year 1976-77 and confirmed that the petitioner was given due notice and opportunity by both the assessing and revisional authorities. As the petitioner failed to avail of the opportunities provided, the Court found no error of law or jurisdictional error in orders Exhibit P-1 and P-2, deeming them valid and legal. Consequently, the original petition was dismissed with costs.