TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (10) TMI 15
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax of Rs. 2,058.25 and Rs. 1,561.40, respectively, for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. The petitioner aggrieved by this order, filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Villupuram, in A. P. Nos. 6 and 7 of 1985 and the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax set aside that order and remanded the matter with direction that notice under section 16(2) of the Act had to be issued before reassessment under section 35 of the Act. So the second respondent thereafter initiated fresh proceedings and a revised assessment was passed on November 19, 1985 under section 35 of the Act for the abovesaid two assessment years. However, he has confirmed the tax that was arrived at before the order of remand. The petitioner thereafter filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, but on the direction of the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, he filed revision before the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax under section 34 of the Act. The Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Madras, has simply accepted the order of assessment made by the second respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has filed th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quantum of tax on the net income. But, he has simply mentioned that he confirmed the order already passed by him on May 22, 1985, and this order of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax by his order dated June 13, 1988. The assessee must understand the quantum of the tax levied by the authority so that a tax assessed must be paid by him. So, for the easy understanding by the assessee, the tax assessed must be made clear in the assessment. In this case, even though the tax arrived at by the authority, namely, the second respondent, had not been mentioned specifically in his order after the enquiry, he would observe that the tax arrived at by him, by his previous order dated May 22, 1985, is correct and, therefore, the same is the tax payable by the petitioner/assessee under the reassessment made by him. The petitioner is fully conscious of the fact that under the order dated May 22, 1985, they have been directed to pay Rs. 2,058.25 and Rs. 1,561.40 for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. It is not difficult for them to understand what was the tax levied by the order of the second respondent on May 22, 1985. Theref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....learned counsel, the sections referred to above in the Income-tax Act are pari materia to the Agricultural Income-tax Act and when the valid notice that is required for reassessment was not complied with, the reassessment is illegal. It is not in dispute that the notice under section 16(2) of the Act was issued only in the year 1985 after the order of remand passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax. As a matter of fact, in Appeals Nos. 6 and 7 of 1985 before the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Villupuram, he set aside the order of the second respondent only on the ground that notice was not issued under section 16(2) of the Act before reassessment was made under section 35 of the Act. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as the notice for reassessment under section 35 of the Act calling upon the petitioner to file the return under section 16(2) of the Act was issued only in the year 1985, i.e., beyond the period of five years contemplated under section 35 of the Act, and, therefore, reassessment order is illegal. But learned counsel appearing for the respondents, Mr. Raviraja Pandian, Special Government Ple....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the second respondent wanted to reopen the assessment for the purpose of reassessment in the year 1985, he issued the notice under section 35 of the Act on October 27, 1977. It reads to be a show-cause notice directing the petitioner to pay the assessment within a period of fifteen days as worked out in that notice, But the petitioner was not asked to file the return as contemplated under section 16(2) of the Act. Section 16(2) of the Act reads that when in the opinion of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, a person is liable to payment of agricultural income-tax, he may serve a notice in the prescribed form requiring such person to furnish within such period not being less than thirty days as may be specified in the notice a return in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner setting forth along with such other particulars as may be provided for in the notice his total agricultural income during the previous year. So section 16(2) of the Act requires the Agricultural Income-tax Officer to issue a notice in the prescribed form and call upon the assessee to furnish the particulars within a period not less than thirty days to submit his return in the prescribed for....