1998 (1) TMI 34

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Coonoor (in charge). The assessee had been assessed to agricultural income-tax for the assessment year 1992-93. It appears that while making the assessment, the provisions of the Amendment Act 40 of 1991 had been applied. The assessee, it is said, aggrieved by the assessment so made, filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Coimbatore-18. The assessee faced dismal failure with regard to the challenge made as respects the applicability of the amendment Act 40 of 1991. The assessee did not stop there. He agitated the matter further by filing an appeal before the Tribunal, as stated above. The only question urged before the Tribunal was that the amendment Act 40 of 1991 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2-93. In support of such a submission, it appears implicit reliance had been placed on the case of Kausalya Santhanam v. Agrl. ITO [1978] 111 ITR 469 (Mad). The Tribunal placing reliance on the said decision held that the Amendment Act 40 of 1991 is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and so holding, allowed the appeal. The tragedy here is that the decision in Kausalya Santhanam's case [1978] 111 ITR 469 (Mad), instead of advancing the case of the assessee, is actually in favour of the Revenue and the Tribunal had grievously erred in not taking into account this aspect of the matter and we will make it fluidly crystal clear by extracting the very same passage occurring in Kausalya Santhanam's case [1978] 111 IT....