High Court Of Gauhati
MCLEOD Russel (India) Ltd. & Anr. vs. Agriculture Income Tax officer & Ors.
Section Assam Agrl. IT 30
Asst. Year 1984-85
Ranjan Gogoi, J.
Civil Rule No. 3172 of 1997
18th January, 2005
Counsel Appeared :
Dr. A.K. Saraf, K.K. Gupta & R.K. Agarwalla, for the Petitioners : Government Advocate for the Respondents
JUDGMENT
Ranjan Gogoi, J. :
Heard Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents to contest the present proceedings. A notice dt. 26th Feb., 1997, issued under the provisions of s. 30 of the Assam Agrl. IT Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), is the subject matter of challenge. The short ground urged is that the aforesaid notice is barred under s. 30 of the Act and therefore the proceedings proposed on the basis of the aforesaid notice are ab initio void. Section 30 of the Act as on the date of the impugned notice is extracted below : “30. Income escaping assessment.—If for any reason any agricultural income chargeable to agricultural income-tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, or has been assessed at too low a rate or has been the subject of undue relief under this Act, the Superintendent of Taxes or Agrl. ITO may at any time within eight years of the end of that assessment year serve on the person liable to pay agricultural income-tax on such agricultural income, or in the case of a company on the principal officer thereof, a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under sub-s. (2) of s. 19, and may proceed to assess or reassess such income, and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that sub-section : Provided that the tax shall be charged at the rate at which it would have been charged if such income had not escaped assessment for full assessment, as the case may be :
Provided further that in computing the period of eight years mentioned in this section the period during which the Superintendent of Taxes or the Agrl. ITO was restrained or prevented from issuing the notice under this section by an order or injunction of any Court or authority shall be excluded.”
4. A bare perusal of s. 30 of the Act would go to show that the legislature has fixed a time-limit of eight years from the end of the assessment year in respect of which reopening of the assessment is sought to be made by issuing a notice under s. 30. In the present case, the notice dt. 26th Feb., 1997, would go to show that reopening the assessment for the year 1984-85 has been sought. Admittedly, the assessment year in respect of which assessment is sought to be reopened is beyond eight years from the date of issuance of the notice. Nothing has been brought on record by the respondents to show that the second proviso to s. 30 is attracted to the present case. Consequently, little persuasion would be required for this Court to hold that the impugned notice dt. 26th Feb., 1997 (Annex. III to the writ petition), is barred by limitation as provided by s. 30. Consequently, while quashing the assessment order and setting aside the notice dt. 26th Feb., 1997, I allow this writ petition.
[Citation : 296 ITR 413]
