K. Natarajan vs Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax and Another

Mohan, J.—The short question that arises in these cases is whether the Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax was right in disallowing

the claim of the petitioner to exclude the lands, based upon the deed of trust dated March 26, 1960. As pointed out by him, the assessment came

to be made u/s 65 in view of the composition application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, this was never a matter urged before the authority. No

doubt, the powers of revision are very wide in character. But, that does not mean that the revisional authority could go beyond the case pleaded by

the petitioner before the original authority and grant him the relief. That, in effect, would mean substitution of the original authority which cannot be

permitted under law. Strictly speaking, there is nothing for revision, since the point relating to the exemption on the basis of the deed of trust was

never even urged before the original authority. In effect and substance what the petitioner seeks is the help of the department to correct his

mistakes, in which case the original authority alone should ''have been approached for exemption u/s 4(b). Such a power cannot be exercised

under the revisional jurisdiction.

However, if and when such an application for exemption is filed before the original authority, that will be considered on merits, uninfluenced by

the dismissal of the writ petition. The time taken during the pendency of the writ petition will also be excluded with regard to the computation of

limitation, if any, in filing the application u/s 4(b). With this observation, the writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs.