Back
2013 Supreme(Cal) 840
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Indra Prasanna Mukerji, J.
Sutton & Sons India Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer, WARD-2(3), Calcutta and others – Respondents
WP No. 244 of 2013 and WP No. 578 of 2013
Decided on : 23-07-2013
For the Petitioner:Dipak Shome, David Mantosh, Juthi Banerjee and Lopita Banerjee, Advocates.
For the I. T. Department :S.B. Saraf and Soma Chatterjee, Advocates.
For the Proforma Respondent:Ahin Chowdhury and S.R. Das, Advocates.
The assessing officer has the power to inspect the farms of the taxpayer before making an assessment, and no assessment can be made without such inspection.
Headnote:
Income Tax Act - Agricultural Income - Interpretation of Section 131 - Power of Assessing Officer to Inspect Farms
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, a seller of flower and fruit seeds, claimed exemption under Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating the income from seed sales as agricultural income. The Income Tax Authorities refused the exemption and passed an assessment order.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the assessment order, directed a fresh assessment, and ruled that the assessing officer has the power to inspect the farms of the writ petitioner before making an assessment.
Issues: Interpretation of Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, claim of agricultural income exemption, production of documents by the writ petitioner, and the assessing officer's power to inspect the farms.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the assessing officer is vested with the power to inspect the farms of the writ petitioner and that no assessment against the writ petitioner can be made without such inspection.
Final Decision: The assessment order was set aside, and a fresh assessment was directed. The assessing officer was instructed to request and inspect the documents and farms of the writ petitioner before making any assessment. The entire exercise was to be completed within four months.
Indra Prasanna Mukerji, J.
It is because of the utmost fairness shown by the learned Counsel on both sides that both these writ applications can be disposed of, so quickly, by this common order.
2. The writ petitioner is a well-known seller of amongst other things, flower and fruit seeds. They claim to grow the plants out of which these seeds are obtained, in their farms at (1) Kalimpong, West Bengal, (2) Srinagar, Kashmir, (3) Warangal, Andhra Pradesh, (4) Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, (5) Ranchi, Jharkhand and (6) Renebennur, Karnataka.
3. The writ petitioner wants to treat the income out of sale of these seeds as agricultural income and has claimed exemption under Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Authorities have so far refused to grant the exemption and have passed the impugned assessment order dated 28th March, 2013 during the pendency of the writ application. There was no stay of assessment, pending hearing of the writ application.
4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner Mr. D.K.Shome, learned Senior Advocate supplemented by Mr. Ahin Chowdhury, learned Senior Advocate invokes Section 131 of the above Act which clothes the assessing officer with the power of discovery and inspection which the civil court enjoys. He draws my attention to Order 39, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure where the court has the power to order inspection of the property which is the subject matter of the suit.
5. I think he is right. If one makes a proper interpretation Section 131 of the Act, the Assessing Officer is also vested with the above power. Hence, he has the power to inspect the farms of the writ petitioner.
6. However, Mrs. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the Income Tax Authorities, submits that the writ petitioner be ordered to produce the documents first, which they have so far not produced. If her clients are not satisfied with the documents, they would then make an inspection of the farms of the writ petitioner.
7. Considering the aforesaid submissions, I dispose of the above two writ applications by the following order:-
(a) The above assessment order dated 28th March, 2013 and all consequential steps taken by the Income Tax Department are set aside.
(b) There will be a fresh assessment.
(c) The assessing officer will direct the writ petitioner to produce whatever documents that may be required by him and the petitioner will produce the same within two weeks of making of such requisition by him.
(d) The assessing officer or his representative will also visit the above farms of the writ petitioner or any of them, if he is not satisfied with the documents produced by the writ petitioner.
(e) The assessing officer will be at liberty to make an assessment on the basis of the documents only. But, no assessment against the writ petitioner can be made without inspection of the above farms.
(f) The cost of inspection of the farms will be borne by the writ petitioner.
(g) The writ petitioner will withdraw the appeal pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) within seven days of this order.
(h) The entire exercise should be completed within four months of communication of this order.
8. All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of the minutes of this order on the usual undertakings.
Writ applications are disposed of.
