Nelliampathy Tea and Produce Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax

T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.—By the judgment dated February 18, 1993, in Tax Revision Case No. 177 of 1991, this court set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax, dated March 30, 1991, revising an order of assessment made on the petitioner for the assessment year 1980-81 u/s 34 of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950. The order of assessment which was revised had been passed on March 21, 1986. The notice initiating suo motu revision proceedings was issued on October 18, 1989. This court felt that it is for the Revenue to demonstrate that there were circumstances beyond control or other supervening events or insurmountable difficulties for not setting in motion the proceedings u/s 34 of the Act within the normal period provided in Sections 35 and 36 of the Act. Since this question had not been properly dealt with, the order of the Commissioner was set aside and he was asked to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, after applying his mind to the question. The Commissioner has thereafter passed the impugned order, annexure "E", on October 25, 1993, in which he has set forth the reasons for the initiation of the proceedings in 1989 and the subsequent order. Inter alia, it was stated that action was delayed because the defect in the assessment was detected only after the period of limitation prescribed for assessing escaped income u/s 35 of the Act. At the same time, action to rectify the mistake u/s 36 was not possible inasmuch as there was likelihood of the mistake being treated as not a mistake apparent on the face of the record justifying action u/s 36. The only course left open for the Commissioner was, therefore, to initiate proceedings u/s 34 which was done without any further delay. It was accordingly that the notice was issued on October 18, 1989, to revise the order of assessment dated March 21, 1986, and, ultimately, the revisional order was passed on March 30, 1991. Having regard to the circumstances stated in the impugned order of the Commissioner and having regard to the fact that the order of assessment itself is dated March 21, 1986, and the revisional proceedings were initiated on October 18, 1989, soon after the defects in the assessment were noted, we are satisfied that there was no unreasonable delay on the part of the Commissioner in initiating the proceedings u/s 34 and that the order impugned is not liable to challenge on the ground of unreasonable delay. Justifiable reasons have been stated in the order for the delay, if any. We are, therefore, satisfied that there is no case for interference with the order in question. This tax revision case is accordingly dismissed.