The assessing authority has the power to decide facts on the proof of which his jurisdiction depends.

Headnote:
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX - ASSESSMENT - JURISDICTION - SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER - COLLECTOR - NOTICE - RE-ASSESSMENT - U. P. AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX ACT, 1948, SS. 2(6), 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 24, 25, 44.
Fact of the Case:

The Sub-Divisional Officer assessed the respondent under S. 16(3) of the U. P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948, for the account period 1335 Fasli. The Collector recomputed tax under S. 25 read with S. 16 (4) of the Act for the said account period. The Agricultural Income-tax Commissioner set aside the orders of the Collector and the Sub-Divisional Officer and directed that the assessment be reopened by the Collector and fresh assessment of the income for 1355 Fasli be made after giving notice to the respondent. The Board of Revision set aside the order of the Commissioner and also the order of assessment made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, and directed that "Fresh assessment will be made according to law."
Finding of the Court:

The High Court recorded an answer in the negative to the question whether on the facts and having regard to the provisions of Section 25 of the Act, the Board could on the 15th October, 1952, direct a fresh assessment to be made.
Issues: Whether the Board of Revision had the authority to direct a fresh assessment to be made, having regard to the provisions of Section 25 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to assess the income of the respondent, as his gross agricultural income exceeded Rs. 1 lakh, and therefore, the notice issued by him under S. 15 (3) was invalid. 2. The Collector could not commence fresh assessment proceeding on the return made to the Sub-Divisional Officer without issuing a fresh notice under S. 15 (3). 3. The notice issued by the Collector under S. 25 for re-assessing income which had escaped assessment was also invalid, as the proceeding of the Collector was set aside as unauthorised.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs in the Supreme Court and the High Court.

Judgement

SHAH, J.: By order dated May 14, 1949, the Sub-Divisional Officer; Jaunpur, assessed Raja Yadvendra Dutt Dube - hereinafter called the respondent - under S. 16(3) of the U. P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948 to pay agricultural income-tax for the account period 1335 Fasli (July 1, 1947 to June 30, 1948) on a net income of Rs. 72,769-15-2. Being of the view that a part of the income of the respondent had escaped assessment the Collector of Jaunpur by order dated June 9, 1950, recomputed tax under S. 25 read with S. 16 (4) of the Act for the said account period on a total net income of Rs. 80,859-13-6. In appeal by the respondent the Agricultural Income-tax Commissioner by order dated March 5, 1952, set aside the orders of the Collector and also of the Sub-Divisional Officer and directed that the assessment be reopened by the Collector and fresh assessment of the income for 1355 Fasli be made after giving notice to the respondent. In the view of the Commissioner, assessment made by the Sub-Divisional Officer was without jurisdiction and the order of reassessment by the Collector "being in review and substitution of the order of assessment" want of jurisdiction in the order of assessment attached to the order of re-assessment as well. The respondent then moved the Board of Revision against the order of the Commissioner. The Board agreed with the Commissioner, that the assessment order made by the Sub-Divisional Officer was "illegal and invalid", but in the view of the Board the Commissioner exceeded his authority in setting aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, which was not challenged in appeal before him. However, the Board observed, the illegality and invalidity of the order of assessment having come to their notice, they would take up the matter suo motu in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction and declare the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer as illegal and set it aside. Accordingly, in setting aside the order of the Commissioner, they also set aside the order of assessment made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, and directed that "Fresh assessment will be made according to law." The Board then referred under S. 24 (4) of the Act the following question of law to the High Court of Allahabad for opinion :

"Whether on the facts and having regard to the provisions of Section 25 of the Act, the Board could on the 15th October, 1952, direct a fresh assessment to be made ?" The High Court, recorded an answer in the negative. The State of Uttar Pradesh has appealed to this Court.

2. The relevant provisions of the Act are briefly these: "Assessing authority" under the Act means a person authorised by the State Government to assess agricultural income-tax; S. 2 (6). By S. 3 charge of agricultural income-tax and super-tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person is imposed. Section 14 sets up Assessing authorities and prescribes their powers. It provides:

"(1) For the purposes of this Act, every Collector, and Assistant Collector in charge of a sub-division shall be assessing authority and shall exercise and perform within his revenue jurisdiction such powers and duties as may be prescribed provided that the State Government may appoint any officer as an assessing authority for such area as may be prescribed:

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following authorities shall be the assessing authorities in the cases mentioned against each namely;

(a) Assistant Collector In-charge of sub-divisional: Where the gross agricultural income does not exceed Rs. 1 lakh.

(b) Collector: In all cases.

Section 15, insofar as it is material, provides:

"(1) The Collector shall * * *give notice, by the publication in the Official Gazette and in such other manner as may be prescribed requiring every person, *

Click Here to Read the rest of this document