TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (11) TMI 43
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the net income at Rs. 21,110.46. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer did not accept the return. He served a pre-assessment notice dated August 3, 1988, on the assessee and proposed to reject the return and the accounts. He also stated that the total assessable income will be estimated at Rs. 70,000. There was an inspection report dated July 30, 1988, before the Agricultural Income-tax Officer showing the relevant particulars. Though the proposal to estimate the taxable income at Rs. 70,000 was intimated to the assessee and an opportunity was afforded to him to have his say, the assessee did not file any objection. By order dated July 17, 1989, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer fixed the net income at Rs. 70,000 and imposed a sum of Rs. 25....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the agreement pleaded between the assessee and Tharayil Joy cannot be accepted as it is against truth and that it is proposed to reject the lease deed and to fix the net assessable income at Rs. 70,000. The pre-assessment notice dated April 17, 1990, was served on the assessee. It gave an opportunity to the assessee of being heard on April 25, 1990. On that day, the assessee requested for time. Time was granted. The matter was posted to May 5, 1990. The assessee again applied for time, in view of his daughter's marriage. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer granted two weeks' time and further recorded that no further time will be granted. It is so seen from the records at page 78. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer has made a note to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was not produced before the assessing authority and no reliance was placed thereon. Moreover, the certificate was issued long after the closure of the accounting period. The Deputy Commissioner came to the conclusion that the lease deed was executed to circumvent the provisions of law. It is against the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner dated July 18, 1992, that this revision is filed under section 78 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991. We heard counsel for the petitioner-assessee and also counsel for the respondent-Revenue, Senior Government Pleader, Mr. V. C. James. Prima facie, this revision filed under section 78 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991, against the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated Ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991, against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax (Appeals) dated July 18, 1992, is not one revisable under section 78 of the Act by this court. We hold so. On this short ground, this revision is not maintainable. Counsel for the assessee contended that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated July 18, 1992, discloses patent illegalities and irregularities and is manifestly unjust. We are of the view that even assuming that revision will not lie under section 78 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991, if the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated July 18, 1992, is infirm or patently unjust, the jurisdiction of this co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee pleaded for time. The matter was adjourned to May 5, 1990. Again the assessee pleaded for time. Two weeks' time was granted. Even so, the assessee did not file any objections to the pre-assessment notice. The officer had no other option but to pass an order of assessment nearly eight months thereafter on December 24, 1990. It is in that order that he gave effect to the proposals contained in the pre-assessment notice and fixed the net income as fixed in the original order of assessment at Rs. 70,000. It was in the appeal filed from the initial assessment order that the assessee put forward a plea based on a lease deed. That was found to be untrue. In revision, the Deputy Commissioner adverted to all the above aspects and came to th....