1992 (6) TMI 19

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fied in holding that the orders passed under section 36 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act is to be read with the original order under section 18 and that orders under section 36 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act can be treated only as part of the original orders ? 2. Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that orders under section 36 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act are appealable ?" The respondent was assessed for and on behalf of her late husband for the years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76, by orders dated March 31, 1979, March 28, 1980, and March 10, 1981. On scrutiny, it was found that the yield estimated from some property was lower than that conceded by the assessee. The assessment orders for the years 1973-74 and 1974-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and, accordingly, the questions, formulated hereinabove, have been referred by the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the decision of this court. We heard counsel. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Sankappa v. ITO [1968] 68 ITR 760, the proceedings taken for rectification of assessment to tax under section 36 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act should be held to be "proceedings for assessment". The above decision was followed by the Supreme Court in Kishanlal Haricharan v. ITO [1972] 86 ITR 141. The legal effect flowing from an order passed rectifying the original assessment came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in International Cotton Corporation (P) Ltd. v. CTO [1975] 35 STC 1. Deli....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Raghaviah's case [1963] 49 ITR 314 and S. Arthanari's case [1972] 83 ITR 828. Ram Prasada Ra) J., delivering the judgment in S. Arthanari's case [1972] 83 ITR 828 (Mad) at page 832, stated the law thus "But, once it is invoked and an order of rectification is made, the order of assessment becomes merged in the order corrected by rectification. The corrected order is then the 'statutorily deemed order of assessment' for it would be anomalous to hold that even after correction, mistaken order ought to prevail. In cases where assessment orders are rectified, the original orders whose mistakes and errors are corrected no longer can hold the field. As pointed out in Vedantham Raghaviah v. Third Additional Income-tax Officer [1963] 49 ITR 314 ....