1979 (3) TMI 35 - HC - Income Tax

High Court allows special appeal, sets aside single judge's order, directs Additional Commissioner. Revision jurisdiction invoked without statutory appeal remedy. Single Article 226 petition for quashing multiple assessment orders maintainable.

The High Court allowed the special appeal, setting aside the single judge's order, and directed the Additional Commissioner to decide the revision ... Agricultural Income Tax Issues:1. Whether the appellants could invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner without availing the statutory remedy of appeal.2. Whether a single petition under Article 226 for quashing separate assessment orders for multiple years was maintainable.Analysis:1. The judgment revolved around the appellants challenging assessment orders under the Rajasthan Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1953. The appellants did not appeal the assessment orders before the Assistant Commissioner but filed revision applications under section 52 of the Act. The Additional Commissioner dismissed these revision applications as time-barred. The appellants then moved the High Court under Article 226 seeking to quash the assessment orders and the Additional Commissioner's dismissal. The single judge initially dismissed the writ petition, holding that the appellants could not invoke revisional jurisdiction without availing the statutory appeal remedy. However, the High Court disagreed, citing the provision under section 52(2) of the Act, which allows revision applications directly to the Commissioner without appealing first.2. The second issue addressed the maintainability of a single petition under Article 226 to challenge separate assessment orders for multiple years. The single judge had dismissed the petition based on this ground. The High Court, however, analyzed the provisions of sections 48 and 52 of the Act. It concluded that the remedy of revision is an alternative to the right of appeal provided in section 48. The Court emphasized that the assessee could choose either the appeal or revision route, as per their discretion. Referring to a Madras High Court decision, the High Court held that failure to file an appeal does not preclude the right to file a revision directly. Therefore, the High Court allowed the special appeal, setting aside the single judge's order, and directed the Additional Commissioner to decide the revision application in accordance with the law.This comprehensive analysis highlights the interpretation of statutory provisions, the distinction between appeal and revision remedies, and the discretion available to the assessee in choosing the appropriate legal recourse.