Madras H.C : This revision petition has been filed by the assessee, who was unsuccessful before the CIT, in his revision petition under s. 34 of the Tamil Nadu Agrl. IT Act for revising the order of the AO who had made an assessment of the assessee’s agricultural income for the asst. yrs. 1985-86

High Court Of Madras

Adinakarthar Chinthamani Athithanar Madam vs. State Of Tamil Nadu

Sections TN Agrl. 54

Asst. Year 1985-86

R. Jayasimha Babu & B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, JJ.

Tax Case No. 647 of 1988

1st September, 1997

Counsel Appeared

None, for the Petitioner : S. Sudharsanan, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. :

This revision petition has been filed by the assessee, who was unsuccessful before the CIT, in his revision petition under s. 34 of the Tamil Nadu Agrl. IT Act for revising the order of the AO who had made an assessment of the assessee’s agricultural income for the asst. yrs. 1985-86 under s. 17 (4) of the Act. The petition has to be dismissed on the short ground that the impugned order has not caused prejudice to the assessee, in view of the express provision to that effect in the second proviso to s. 34(1), as held by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Seshadrinathan (N.N.) vs. State of Madras (1966) 60 ITR 482 (Mad) TC 57R.752 which held that the decision of the Privy Council in the case of CIT vs. Tribune Trust (1948) 16 ITR 214 (Mad) TC 10R.633, 55R.475, 52R.1529, 57R.351 has impliedly overruled the decision of a Special Bench of five judges of this Court, in the case of Voora Sreeramulu Chetty vs. CIT (1939) 7 ITR 263 (Mad) TC 54R.201. The Privy council in the context of the IT Act had held that where the assessee also had a complaint against any assessment made by any subordinate officer, he had the appropriate and specific remedy which the Act provides and that when he approaches the CIT to exercise his powers of revision, the assessee does nothing to worsen his own position, and he can acquire no right by having approached the CIT and the CIT declining his plea. It was held that the assessee does not acquire a further right to approach this Court by way of a further revision. The assessee’s right is only by way of appeal against the orders of the subordinate authorities and that right has to be exercised in the manner provided under the Act. The remedy by way of revision of limited to what is provided in s. 34. Having regard to this position in law, this petition has to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

[Citation : 246 ITR 142]

Malcare WordPress Security