1998 (1) TMI 40

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The petitioner claimed before the assessing authority that he is entitled for special allowance to be granted to the industrial undertaking as per section 80-I of the Central Income-tax Act. That was negatived by the assessing authority. Therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax (Appeals), Mysore. The appellate authority, vide its order dated November 28, 1977, granted certain reliefs. The Deputy Commissioner of the Agricultural Income-tax (Appeals) has also held that the Agricultural Income-tax Officer has to allow the deduction at 8 per cent. under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act before determining the taxable agricultural income for the relevant assessment years and remanded ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aring for the Revenue contended that the Joint Commissioner reviewed the order of the assessing authority dated December 15, 1980, which is the order giving effect to the relief granted by the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, that order can be revised by the joint Commissioner by virtue of the power under section 35 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957. In view of the above contentions, the important question of law that arises for our consideration is : Whether the revisional authority can exercise jurisdiction to revise the consequential order passed in pursuance of the order of the appellate authority when the order passed by the appellate authority is not revised or not altered and the date of revisional power exercis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ught to be revised. Therefore, the limitation to exercise the power to revise the order is four years as prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 35. The required grounds to exercise power of revision are that orders to be revised passed by the authority subordinate to the revisional authority. Secondly, it is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Thirdly, an opportunity to the assessee before revising the order. Fourthly, as in sub-section (2), the said power has to be exercised within four years from the date of the order sought to be revised. Sub-section (2) of section 35 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act prescribes a ban stating that after expiry of fours years' time from the date of the....