NEW AMBADI ESTATES PRIVATE LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter arises under the Coorg Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1951, hereinafter called the Act. For the assessment year 1952-53 the petitioner was assessed to tax under the Act by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer of Coorg, over-ruling the claim of the petitioner that certain sums received did not constitute income in its hands and that the net result of the year was one of loss. The petitioner's appeal was unsuccessful; but on a reference to this Court in CP. No.89 of 1956 its contention was accepted. The order of this Court was taken up by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax in CA. No.696 of 1965 to the Supreme Court which by its judgment dated 12-10-1966 affirmed the decision of this Court. Thereafter on 21-12-1967 the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, respondent No.2, in this Writ Petition passed an order to give effect to the Order of this Court as confirmed by the Order of the Supreme Court. By the said Order, he determined the unabsorbed loss of the petitioner at Rs.51,143, which he directed should bo carried forward to the next year for being set off against the income of that year. It stated: "This loss of Rs.51,143 is ordered to be earned forward to the next year for being set off against the income of that year." Long before the decision of this Court in CP.No.89 of 1936 aforesaid, the assessment for 1953-54 was completed on the basis that there was no loss from 1952-53 to be carried forward for being set off aganist the profits of 1953-54. To give effect to his own Order, and the decision of this Court, what the second respondent should have done was to revise his order of assessment for the assessment year 1953-54 by setting off of the loss of Rs.51,143 earned lorward from 1952-53 against the proiits of 1953-54.. When the petitioner wrote to the second respondent to give effect to his order dated 21-12-1967 he informed the petitioner that instructions from the Commissioner oi Commercial Taxes (respondent No.1) had been solicited in the matter. By letter dated 26-3-1968 the second respondent informed the peitioner that the matter ol revision ox assessment order for 1953-54 was receiving the attention of the Government. By letter dated 6-8-1969, the first respondent informed the petitioner that his request for revision of the assessment order for 1953-54 cannot be made as the same was not acceptable to the Government. Left with no order remedy the petitioner approached this Court for relief under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Originally, the Comimssioner of Agricultural Income-tax alone had been impleaded as the sole respondent to the Writ Petition. We directed the petitioner to implead the Agricultural Income-tax Officer of Coorg and make the necessary consequential amendments. According to our direction, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer of Coorg, was impleaded as the second respondent and the Writ Petition was amended, seeking a direction to the second respondent to revise the assssment for the year 1953-54 so as to give effect to his order dated 21-12-1967. S.14 of the Act which is in pari materia with S.24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, reads:

(3.) It is clear from the above provision that the assesse has a statutory right and the assessing authority has a corresponding duty to set off the loss carried forward from one vear to the following year Where the assessment for 1953-54 was completed before the assessment for 1952-53 was finalised which resulted in a loss to be carried forward to the following year the Department cannot refuse to revise the assessment for 1953-54 on the ground that it has become final The Department is bound to give effect to the provisions of S.14 by setting off the loss of the preceding year carried forward against the income of the following vear. The stand of the first respondent amounts to denial of the benefit of the decision of this Court to the assessee The second respondent has in fact ordered on 21-12-1967 that the loss of Rs.51,143 shall be carried forward to the next year for being set off against the income of that vear But after making a correct order, he failed to give effect to the same when he sought the instructions of the first responded who under directions of the Government, not authorised by law refused the request of the petitioner. In our opinion the second respondent was bound to give effect to his order dated 21-12-1967. which is in accordance with the provisions of S.14. by revising his order of assessment for the assessment vear 1953-54 Since he has failed to carry out his statutory duty, we issue a Writ directing the second respondent to give effect to his order dated 21-12-1967. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.