Chandran and Co. and others vs Agricultural Income Tax Officer

Kanakaraj, J.—In both the above writ petitions, the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari to quash the notices issued u/s 16 of the Tamil Nadu

Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1955, calling upon the petitioners to file a return in the prescribed form. According to the petitioners, they are not

liable to file a return under the Act because of the following circumstances. The petitioner in each case is a partnership firm. They are registered

under the provisions of section 27 of the Act. The individual partners had applied for compounding the agricultural Income Tax u/s 65 of the Act.

According to the petitioners, the partners of the firm have thus paid the agricultural Income Tax in accordance with the provisions of section 65 of

the Act. Since the entire extent of land owned by the firms had been offered for composition by the individual partners in accordance with their

proportionate share in the partnership firm, it is contended that the firm is not bound to submit the return of income or make an application for

composition u/s 65 of the Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to section 65(3) of the Act and contends that only the individual partners can apply for permission to

compound the agricultural Income Tax payable by them. Learned counsel for the petitioners also refers to section 17(5) of the Act for buttressing

his argument that the firm need not file a return u/s 16 of the Act. I have carefully perused the above provisions of law. In my view, section 17(4) of

the Act clearly indicates that even a firm is bound to file a return u/s 16. What section 17(5)(a) says is that, in the case of a registered firm, the tax

payable by the firm itself shall not be determined but the total income of each partner of the firm, including therein, his share of its income, profits

and gains of the previous years, shall be assessed, and the tax payable by him on the basis of such assessment shall be determined. In my

considered view, section 17(5) only refers to the method of assessing a partnership firm, whether registered or unregistered. There is certainly no

room for the contention that the registered firm need not file a return u/s 16 if the individual partners had applied for compounding the tax u/s 65 of

the Act.

Further, the petitioners have been only called upon to file their returns. It is open to them to file all their objections that are now raised before this

court. As and when orders are passed by the Assessing Officer the petitioners have got adequate alternative remedies provided under the Act. The

petitioners cannot, therefore, challenge the notices u/s 16 of the Act without filing their objections.

For all the above reasons, these writ petitions are dismissed. There will be no orders as to costs.