JACOB V. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

OTC/2/2008

AI Insights

The case revolves around a dispute concerning the application of compounding under Section 13 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991, by Jacob Abraham for the assessment year 2001-2002. Initially, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes set aside the first appellate authority's order and directed the assessing authority to complete the assessment for the said year. Jacob Abraham contested this, arguing that he had not applied for compounding as assumed by the Commissioner. However, the court found substantial evidence, including the assessee's own documents, confirming the application and tax remittance for compounding. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Commissioner's decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 693814 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MOHAMED RAFIQ
• Assessee Lawyers: ISSAC PERUMPILLIL; JIJO KALLOOKKARAN
• Keywords: Agricultural income-tax; Assessment; Compounding; Exemption from plantation tax
• Section: 13; 35; 76

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/14TH BHADRA, 1938 OTC.No. 2 of 2008 ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN R2 39345/2007/CT of COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 01-04-2008 PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:: --------------------------------- JACOB ABRAHAM, KALLIVAYALIL, MALLIKASSERY P.O. BY ADVS.SRI.ISSAC M.PERUMPILLIL SRI.JIJO PAUL KALLOOKKARAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:: --------------------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PUBLIC OFFICES BUILDING, VIKAS BHAVAN,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS) II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 3. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX OFFICER, KANJIRAPPALLY. By SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI MOHAMED RAFIQ THIS OTHER TAX CASES HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. ============================== O.T.C. No. 2 OF 2008 ============================== Dated this the 5th day of September, 2016 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic,J. The assessee has filed this case aggrieved by Annexure-X order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram, in exercise of his powers under Section 76 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ) setting aside Annexure-VIII order passed by the first appellate authority and directing the assessing authority to complete the assessment under Section 13 of the Act for the assessment year 2001- 2002. On facts, suffice it to state that on an application filed by the assessee, compounding under Section 13 of the Act was permitted for the years 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. Subsequently, the orders issued permitting compounding under Section 13 of the Act for the year 1999-2000 were set aside. 2. In the meantime, on 16.3.2001, the assessee applied for compounding for the year 2001-02 and also remitted the tax due. He OTC 2/2008 2 had also applied for a certificate to claim the benefit of exemption from the plantation tax. Subsequently, based on the cancellation of the benefit of compounding for the year 1999-2000, the assessee filed return under Section 35 of the Act for the year 2001-2002. Accordingly, Annexure-VII assessment order was passed on 5.6.2006. However, in the appeal filed, the first appellate authority passed Annexure-VIII order modifying the order of assessment. It was this order which was revised by the Commissioner by Annexure-X order which is impugned by the assessee in this case. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 4. The only contention raised by the assessee is that Annexure-X order of the Commissioner was passed, in exercise of his power under Section 76 of the Act, erroneously assuming that the assessee had applied for compounding for the year 2001-2002 and that therefore, the assessment on income basis is illegal. According to the learned counsel, the assessee had not applied for compounding as assumed by the Commissioner. On the other hand, referring to Annexure-X order and other documents produced by the assessee himself, the learned Government Pleader contradicted the contention raised. 5. We have considered the submissions made. OTC 2/2008 3 6. The question that arise for consideration is whether the Commissioner was justified in its conclusion that the assessee had applied for compounding under Section 13 of the Act. Section 13 of the Act provides for composition of Agricultural Income Tax. Rule 15 of the Agricultural Income Tax Rules provides that the application in that behalf shall be in Form 1A, and that the return shall be in Form No.1. Contents of Form No.1 would disclose that among other particulars to be furnished, the details of tax paid and balance, if any, and the details of payments made are required to be indicated. 7. Annexure-X order of the Commissioner shows that on 16.3.2001, the assessee had applied for compounding. It further shows that the tax due was also remitted by the assessee. The order also states that the assessee had applied for a certificate for production before the Tahsildar to show that he had opted for compounding to claim exemption from the payment of plantation tax. The fact that such a certificate was obtained by the assessee on 27.7.2001 as is evident from Annexure-IX letter of the assessee himself. The finding regarding the remittance of tax is not disputed. Remittance could not have been made except on an application for compounding. 8. Therefore the findings of the Commissioner that the assessee OTC 2/2008 4 had applied for compounding, that he had remitted the tax due and that he had obtained a certificate for claiming exemption from the plantation tax are unassailable. The assessee having opted for compounding as stated above, the attempt of the assessee now is obviously to take advantage of the findings in Annexure-VIII order and to claim refund of the amount remitted by him along with his application for compounding. Law is trite that a person who has opted for compounding cannot thereafter withdraw from the same. In such circumstances, the finding of the Commissioner that the assessment on income basis, as per Annexure-VII and Annexure-VIII is illegal, having regard to the option of the assessee for compounding under Section 13 of the Act, cannot be said to be illegal. 9. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this case. The O.T.C. is dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE ks. True copy P.S. (Hr.Gr.)To Judge OTC 2/2008 5 "