Kerala High Court
Commissioner Of Agricultural ... vs Abdul Sathar Hajee Moosa Sait ... on 22 July, 1987
Author: K.S. Paripoornan
Bench: K.S. Paripoornan
JUDGMENT K.S. Paripoornan, J.
1. The Agricultural Income-tax Tribunal has referred two questions of law for our decision at the instance of the applicant who is an assessee to agricultural income-tax. The assessee is a trust. The matter relates to the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. The assessments were completed on November 30, 1970. The appeals were filed by the applicant before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on January 22, 1971. The appeals stood posted on many occasions. During the course of hearing, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found certain glaring mistakes in the computation of income made by the asses-
see for the two years 1967-68 and 1968-69. Since the correction of the mistakes would result in enhancement of the income, the Appellate Assis tant Commissioner issued notices to the applicant on January 31, 1977, March 24, 1977, and May 25, 1977, informing the applicant about his proposal to rectify the assessments for correcting the mistakes. The applicant objected to the same. According to the applicant, the rectifi cation was governed by Section 36 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act and the assessing authority should have rectified the same within 3 years from the date of the assessment order. The said time expired on November 30, 1973. So, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was incompetent to correct the mistakes or rectify the mistakes. The objec tions were overruled by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who, by order dated June 30, 1977, corrected or rectified the mistakes. The appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal was dismissed. Thereafter, the asses-
see filed two applications to refer the questions of law formulated as follows:
"(i) Whether the mistakes in the assessment orders, apparent from the records, committed by the assessing authority could be corrected by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner invoking his powers of enhancement under Section 31(5)(i) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act or whether such mistakes could be rectified only by the assessing authority within the time-limit given under Section 36 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act?
(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not in any way act beyond his jurisdiction under Section 31(5)(i) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act while correcting such mistakes in the assessment orders as were apparent from the assessment records?"
2. We heard counsel for the assessee as also counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Divakaran Pillai. It is conceded that in exercising the powers vested in him as an appellate authority under Section 31 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is competent to enhance the assessment. If that be so, it is illogical to contend that the enhancement so made, in rectifying the mistakes or correcting the mistakes that crept in the order, is unauthorised. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner exercised his powers vested in him under Section 31 of the Act. He did not invoke the jurisdiction under Section 36 of the Act. If in the exercise of his powers vested in him under Section 31 of the Act, it resulted in ar enhancement, which he was competent to do, it will not be rendered invalid merely because the rectification could also have been effected by the assessing authority in the exercise of his powers under Section 36 of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal was justified in affirming the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, We are of the view that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law.
3. We answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In answering question No. (i), we should state that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could invoke his powers of enhancement under Section 31 of the Act for correcting the mistakes.