COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM versus SMT. LUCY KOCHUVAREED

Citation: [1976] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 657 · Decided: 07-05-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.C. GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
coMMisstONER bF AGRICuLTURAL iNcoME TAX, 
A 
TRIVANDRUM 
v. 
Sl\H. LUCY KOCHUVAREED 
• 
May 7, 1976 
B 
• 
" 
[A. C. GUPTA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ,J 
,, " 
Kera/a Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950, ss. 34 and 35-Rt1'isio1111l power 
of Con1n1issioner and assessi11g 'escaped assessn1en1', scope of. 
The asscssee made a full disclosure of his income and claimed expenses 
incurred for the maintenance of his immature rubber plantations as deductions. 
The Agricultul)ll Income Tax Officer, after considering the maUer, allowed such 
deductions as he thought proper. The appellant-Commissiouer, in exercise of c 
his revisional powers under s. 34, Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950, 
issued notice to the respondent (widow of the asoessee) proposing to revise 
the assessment on the ground that the deductions allowed were excessive. The 
appellant, after considering the rcspondenfs objections, held that the deductions 
allowed were excessive and remanded the matter to the Agricultural Income 
Tax Officer for fresh disposal according to Jaw. At the in.ranee of the respon· 
dent, tho question whether the appellant had jurisdiction to pass the order 
D 
under s. 34 was referred to the High Court, and the High Court, on the view 
that it was a case of re-opening escaped assessment held, relying on Ma/raraja. 
dhiraj Sir Kamesltwar Singh v. State of Bi/tar, (1959) 37 I.T.R. 388 (SC), 
that the ~ower of revision vested in the Commissioner under s. 34 could not 
be invoked for the purpose of assessing income that had escaped ........,ent, 
and that such income could be assessed only by resorting to the procedure 
prescribed by s. 35, \\ithin the time limit presttibed therein. 
~ 
A!lowin11 the appeal to this Court, 
E 
HELD : ( !) Every case of under-assessment is not a case of escaped assess· 
ment. The Agricultural Income Tax Officer may have commiUcd nn error 
in allowing the deduetiOtlS to the extent he did, but he did so after applying 
his miiid to th~ claims. This is not a case where tho officer omitted to ...... 
any item of income disclosed in the assessee's return as in the case relied 
on by the High Court and as in Kamal Slngf1 v. C./.T, (1959) 35 J.T.R. I (SC) • 
. Therefore, it is not a ease of reopenlng escaped assessment. [662F·Hl 
F 
Deputy Commisdoner Qf Agricultural /n<:ome-tax arrd Sales Tax, Quilo" 
and another 
v. 
Dharraloksltmi Vilas Casfrew Co., 
(1969) 24 S.T.C. 491, 
followed. 
(2) Since it fa not a case of escaped assessment, tho appellant had jurisdic· 
!ion to make the order under s. 34. [663BJ 
· 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICT!O).f : Civil Appeal Nos. 793 to 794 
G 
• 
of 1971. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 
the 7th August, 1970 of the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in 
~ 
Income Tax Reference No. 9 of 1968. 
T. S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, N. Sudhakara11 and K. M. K. Nair; for 
the Appellant (ln CA 793/71) 
H 
K. M. K. Nair; for the appellant (In C.A. 794/71). 
44-833 Sup. CT/76 
658 
SUPRE~iE coiJRi: REPORTS 
[i976} SUPPLEMENTARY 
A 
D. V. Patel and A. S. Nambiar; for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
. GUPTA, J.-One T. V. Kochuvarced who owned rubber planta· 
lions m Tnchur was assessed by the Agricultural Income-tax olhccr, 
incrnu, on a net agr1cu1tura1 mcome 
ot 
Ks. 
31"00.t/-
and 
B 
!<.s. Ju,~Jb/- respectively tor the 
assessment years 
l\IJ9-60 and 
1\160-ol. 
Jhe assessee nad in his possession immature rubber p1an-
tat10n covering 193 acres during the assessment year 1959-60 and 2\13 
acres durmg tne assessment year 1960-61. In compu:ing the income 
for the saiu two years, the Agricultural Income-tax Otnccr had dis· 
al.Jawed om of the expenses claimed for the upkeep and maintenance 
of the immature area Rs. 
2500/- for the 
year 
1959-60 
and 
C 
Rs.3500/- for the year 1960-61. T. V. Kochuvareed died in 1961 
leaving behind him as his heir and legal representative his wife who 
is ,the respondent before us. 
On March 13, 1963 the Commissioner 
of AgricuJtural Income-tax issued a notice under section 34 of the 
Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 
1960 
to the 
respondent, 
·which was served on her on March 15, 1963, proposing to revise 
s1.10 motu the assessment for the said two years on the ground that 
D· 
the deductions allowed were excessive and without any prOper basis 
as a result of which Rs. 
16,800/- for 
the 
year 1959-60, and 
Rs. 25,800/- for 1960..61 had "escaped assessment". 
The respon-
ldent was asked to me objections, if a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.