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 revisional authority was justified in rejecting the commissioner's report as irrelevant merely because it related to an inspection conducted after the accounting year.
Analysis: Section 31(4) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, expressly permits the appellate authority to issue a commission in appropriate cases and requires the appeal to be decided only after considering the commissioner's report. Section 38(c) of the same Act and Rule 25A of the Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1951, show that such a report is contemplated as relevant material for determining yield and cultivation expenses. Although yield and expenditure may vary from year to year, that does not render a later inspection report irrelevant; the report must be considered along with objections and used to the extent it is relevant and acceptable for assessing the probable income for the accounting year.
Conclusion: The rejection of the commissioner's report on the sole ground that each assessment year is independent was unsustainable, and the impugned revisional order was quashed with a direction to reconsider the revision afresh on the entire material, including the commissioner's report.