Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Acts
  • sub-section (1) of section 35
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Acts
  • sub-section (1) of section 35

    Commissioner Of Agricultural Income-Tax v. Kappumalai Estate

    Mrs. K.K Usha, J.:— The reference is at the instance of the Revenue, the assessments years are 1979-80 and 1980-81. The question referred for the opinion of this court is as follows:

    “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessments for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81 were completed within the period prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 35 of the Agricultural Income-Tax Act?”

    2. Section 35(2) provides that no order of assessment under section 18 or of assessment or reassessment under sub-section (1) of section 35 shall be made after the expiry of five years from the end of the year from which the agricultural income was first assessable.

    3. For the year 1979-80, it is seen that the assessment order is dated March 13, 1985, it was despatched on April 22, 1985, and received by the assessee on April 26, 1985. The assessment order for the year 1980-81 was dated March 24, 1986, was despatched on December 2, 1986, and was received by the assessee on December 5, 1986. By applying the principles laid down by this court in Govt. Wood Workshop v. State Of Kerala, [1988] 69 STC 62 and in an earlier decision of a Bench of this court in Malayil Mills v. State of Kerala (T.R.C Nos. 15 and 16 of 1981), it has to be taken that for both the years the assessment order had not been made within the period prescribed under section 35(2). This court had taken the view that to make the order complete and effective it should be issued so as to be beyond the control of the authority concerned, for any possible change or modification. This should be done within the prescribed period, though the actual service of the order may be beyond that period. For both the years the assessment orders were despatched after the period of five years prescribed under section 35(2).

    4. In the light of the above, we answer the question in the negative, in favour of the assessee against the Revenue.

    5. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Kerala Agricultural Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Addl. Bench, Kozhikode.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Commissioner Of Agricultural Income-Tax v. Kappumalai Estate
    (Mar 18, 1997)