2004 (2) TMI 31

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not in dispute that the assessee grows coffee in his land. For the subsequent year, i.e., for the year 2000-01, while filing Form No. 23 the petitioner has indicated that his extent of holding is not 48 acres 33 guntas but a lesser extent and accordingly sought to pay a lesser amount of tax by way of composition. The assessee paid a sum of Rs. 16,650 on August 7, 2000. The Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax by a notice dated March 20, 2002, purporting to be under section 19(2) read with section 66 of the Act called upon the assessee to indicate as to why he should not be directed to make payment of a sum of Rs. 61,812 being the composition fee on the premise that his holding was to the extent of 53 acres 33 guntas. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the petitioner is that section 42 is a provision for recovery of the arrears of tax when the assessee becomes a defaulter in payment of tax or any other amount due under the Act; that such a person is made liable to pay penalty under sub-clause (a) to section 42(1)(ii) of the Act and in the present case the provisions of section 41(1) or section 41(2) had not been followed nor attracted; that there was no occasion for the respondent to determine the difference amount envisaged under section 42. Learned counsel also submits that there is no other enabling provision under the Act to levy such a penalty on the amount of Rs. 36,457 and as such when no provision had been made under the Act itself for levy of penalty or interest in respect of s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... been redetermined. It is submitted that as in the instant case the petitioner has ultimately accepted and admitted his liability for the payment of this amount of Rs. 53,107 and having without any demur paid the difference amount of Rs. 36,457 on April 9, 2002, it was inevitable for the respondent to call upon the assessee to make payment of penalty under section 42 of the Act, for the period between July 31, 1999, and April 9, 2002, on the differential amount of Rs. 36,457. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader and after perusing the respective pleadings and the provisions of the Act, I am of the view that there is every justification on the part of the respondent in invoking the provisions....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sum of Rs. 16,650 only on August 17, 2000, and has paid the balance of Rs. 36,457 on April 9, 2002. To this extent there is definitely non-compliance. A reading of the provision of section 66 shows that it automatically implies that the assessee was a defaulter during this period as understood in section 42 of the Act and the defaulting period was on and after July 31, 1999, and up to April 9, 2002, when the assessee made payment of the deficit. In a case where the assessee opts for payment of tax by way of composition the period envisaged under sub-clause (a) of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 42 gets automatically determined by the statutory operation, to be the period between July 31 of the year and the date of payment of the a....