STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus RAJA YADVENDRA DUTT DUBE

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 161 · Decided: 17-12-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
• 
c 
• 
D 
E 
.. 
F 
G 
t 
I 
H 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
v. 
RAJA Y ADVENDRA DUTT DUBE 
December 17, 1965 
[K. SUBBA RAO, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. SIKRI, JJ.] 
U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 
1948, ss. 14(1) & (2), 
15(3), 
25-Jurisdiction to assess when gross income exceeds Rs. 1 lakh-Revj-
sion Board whether competent to direct Collector to make an assessment 
after period under s. 25 has expired-Whether Collector can make assess. 
ment on basis of return filed before Sub-Divisional Officer on notice issu· 
ed by latter under s. 15 (3 )-whether assessment can be made on such 
return on the basis of notice issued under s. 14(1). 
The respondent-assessee had a gross agricultural income of more than 
Rs. I lakh in 1355 Fash (July 1, 1947 to June 30, 1948). 
In response 
to a notice issued by the Assistant C<>llector under s. 15(3) <>f the U.P. 
Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948, the assessee filled a return 
of his 
income and the said officer made an assessment though under s. 14(2) 
of the Act jurisdiction to assess in cases when the gross income exceeded· 
Rs. 1 lakh Jay within the Collector. The' Collector thereafter made a re· 
assessment under s. 25 read with s. 16( 4) within the period of limitation 
prescribed under the former section i.e. "within one year of the end of 
the year in which the income had e.icaped asse33ment". 
In 
appeal 
by 
the respondent the Agricultural Income-tax Commissioner set aside the 
ordeai of the Collector and also of the Assistant Collector and directed 
the Collector to make a fresh assessment after giving notice to the res-
pondent. The Board of Revision held that the Commissioner had r:ght-
ly decided that the order.s in question were invalid but that the Commis-
sioner was not empowered to set aside the order of the Assistant Collector 
which was not challenged before him. However the Board suo motu set 
aside the order of the Assistant Collector and directed that fresh asse-;s~ 
ment be made "accord:ng to law". The High Court in reference under 
s. 24( 4) held that having regard to the limitation provided in s. 25 
tho 
Board could not in 1952 direct the Collector to make a fresh assessment 
for the period in question. The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed to this 
Court. 
Tt was contended on behalf of the State 
that : (I) The Assistant 
Collector could make assessment even in case5 \\'hen the gross income 
exceeded Rs. 1 lakh. 
(2) The notice under s. 15(3) issued by the Assis-
tant Collector not having been set aside. by the higher 
authorities, 
the 
Collector cculd, as directed by the Board, 
make an assessment without 
transgressing 
any 
restrictions in s. 15(3) 
or s. 25. 
(3) 
without a 
fresh notice un.der s. 15 (3) the. C<>llector had the p<>wer by virtue of the 
notice under s. 15(1), to assess the income of the respondent on the 
return made pursuant to the notice issued by the Assistant Collector. (4) 
Since notice under 9. 25 for re-assessment of !he escaped income had 
been issued by the Collector within the1 period prescribed by s. 25(3) and 
the notice was otherwise valid, assessment proceedings directed by the 
Board could be founded by the Collector on that notice. 
HELD: (i) Reading sub-s. (1) & (2) together there can be no doubt 
that the Collector is the assessing authority within his revenue jurisdiction 
with unlimited jurisdiction and the Assistant Collector in charge of a 
sub-division is the asses3ing authority within his revenue jurisdiction with 
power only in cases in which the gross agricultural income of the asscssee 
16 2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1966) 3 S.C.R. 
does not exceed Rs. 1 lakh. 
The Assi<tant Collector is not entitled to 
A 
make assessment in such a case relying on the geocraJtty of the provisions 
of s. 14(1 ). [167 F-<:;J 
(ii) When the Assistant Collector arrived at tho conclusion that tho 
gross income of the respondent exceeded Rs. 1 lakh the proceedings ini-
tiated by him including the issue of the notice must, unless that conclu-
sion is set aside by 
a superior authority, be treated 
as unauthorised, 
for the power to issue a notice under s. 15 ( 3) is only conferred upon 
B 
the a:,sessing authority and the ac;sessing authority within the meaning of 
s. 2(6) is a person authorised ro asse:;s agricultural income-tax. 
There 
is no provision in the Act or the Rules for transfer of proceedings from 
the Assistant Collector to the Collector when the Assistant Collector 
in 
dealing with a return finds that he 
h1s no 
ju

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