TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1977 (6) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on application filed by the petitioner for all the years 1963-64 to 1971-72, that the exact extent of the land held by him in Mukundarayapuram village could not be given in his return as the settlement proceedings are ending in respect thereof, and that he had no objection for revision of the assessment after the completion of the said settlement proceedings and after the exact extent of land belonging to the petitioner is clearly ascertained. Based on the said statement of the petitioner in his composition applications, composition orders had been passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer reserving his right to reopen and revise the same as and when the extent of land held by the petitioner in Mukundarayapuram village is ascertained on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y revision of the composition order can only be done by invoking section 35 of the Act which provides for the manner of assessing an escaped income, and no notice proposing assessment of escaped income as contemplated under section 35 of the Act has been given to him for any of the years in this case. As against this contention, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that an order of composition cannot be taken as an order of assessment under section 17 of the Act, that, therefore, revised orders of composition cannot be treated as orders passed under section 35 of the Act and that the original orders of composition having made a reservation of the right of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer to include the extent of the lands hel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sition, the assessing authority will be entitled to proceed to revise the assessment by invoking section 35 of the Act if it is found that certain lands belonging to the petitioner have not been included in his aggregate holding for any reason. Here the reason why the lands at Mukundarayapuram village was not included in the holding of the petitioner at the time when the original order of composition was made was that the settlement proceedings were not complete and it is not known clearly as to what is the actual extent held by the petitioner in that village. Therefore, the consent given by the petitioner in his application for composition or the reservation made in the original orders of composition by the officer is not quite material fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....port of the writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been stated that section 35 of the Act had not been invoked in all these cases and, therefore, there is no necessity to issue the notice proposing revision as contemplated under section 35 of the Act and that, in any event, notice as contemplated under section 35 of the Act had been in fact given in respect of five assessment years 1966-67 to 1970-71. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has denied the service of any notice on him under section 35 of the Act for any of the years. But the assessment file produced before the court would show that a combined notice for the five years, 1966-67 to 1970-71, has in fact been served on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment years 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1971-72, the revised orders of composition cannot be upheld. The revised orders in respect of these years have, therefore, to be quashed. The assessing officer is, however, given liberty to proceed with the revision of the assessment under section 35 of the Act, after giving due notice to the petitioner and after giving him a reasonable opportunity to put forward his case against the proposed revision of the original orders of composition. The second ground of attack made by the petitioner against the revised orders of composition is that the extent held by him in Mukundarayapuram village has not been correctly fixed by the assessing authority and that some of the lands not belonging to him ha....