Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the recovery proceedings for agricultural income-tax were barred by limitation under the proviso to section 40(1) and section 41(4) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950.
Analysis: The proviso to section 40(1) was treated as an enabling provision intended for the assessee's benefit and operating only when the assessee invokes it and only during the pendency of a first appeal under section 31. The Court held that there was no proof that the assessee had been treated as not being in default under that proviso, and that the second limb of section 41(4) could not be applied on the facts. As regards the first limb of section 41(4), the Court held that recovery proceedings are commenced when the authority issues a request or order for recovery under the Revenue Recovery Act, which in the present case occurred within the permitted period.
Conclusion: The recovery proceedings were not time-barred and the challenge to the demand failed.
Final Conclusion: The assessment-based recovery action was held to be legally valid, and the original petition was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of the limitation provision governing recovery of tax, proceedings are commenced when the competent authority initiates recovery under the Revenue Recovery Act, and the proviso treating an assessee as not in default operates only as a discretionary, invoked protection during a first appeal.