Revision notice validity turns on reasonable opportunity to object, not technical form, where assessee receives clear notice and adjournments.

In revision proceedings under the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, the validity of notice depended on whether the assessee received an effective opportunity to object to the proposed revision, not on technical service formalities used in reassessment cases. Notices addressed to the managing partner, with copies served on the assessees, were held sufficient because they stated the grounds for revision and the proposed action, and the assessees in fact received them. The assessees were also given adjournments and a further date but still did not appear; the Court found no denial of reasonable opportunity or natural justice. The revisional orders were upheld and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notices initiating revision under section 35(1) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 were invalid because they were addressed to the managing partner with copies sent to the assessees; (ii) Whether the assessees were denied reasonable opportunity before the Commissioner revised the assessments.

Issue (i): Whether the notices initiating revision under section 35(1) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 were invalid because they were addressed to the managing partner with copies sent to the assessees.

Analysis: The revisional provision was treated as materially different from the reassessment provisions relied upon by the assessees. The Court held that, in proceedings under section 35(1), the crucial question is whether the affected assessee was given an effective opportunity to represent against the proposed revision. The notices in question clearly stated the grounds for revision and the proposed action, and the assessees received them.

Conclusion: The notices were not invalid on the ground urged, and the objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessees were denied reasonable opportunity before the Commissioner revised the assessments.

Analysis: The assessees were informed of the proposed revisional action, sought adjournments, were granted a further date, and still did not appear on the date fixed. The Court found that the opportunity afforded was reasonable and that non-appearance was attributable to the assessees themselves. The fact that the notices were addressed to the managing partner and copies were served on the others did not show denial of opportunity.

Conclusion: Reasonable opportunity was afforded, and the contention of denial of natural justice failed.

Final Conclusion: The revisional orders were upheld, and the petitions challenging them failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In revision proceedings under section 35(1) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, the validity of the action depends on whether the assessee was given a reasonable opportunity to make representations against the proposed revision, not on the technical form of the notice as in reassessment proceedings.

---