RAJA BAHADUR KAMAKSHYA NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the accounting year 1949-50, a notice was issued against the assessee by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Hazaribagh, under section 19(2) of the Bihar Agricultural Income-tax Act. The notice was issued on the 4th July, 1950, and the assessee filed a return on the 15th February, 1951. On the 3rd August, 1952, the AGricultural Income-tax Officer made the assessment on "best judgment" basis and held that the assessee was liable to pay tax of Rs. 1,58,541-1-0. Against this order the assessee presented an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, but the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the assessee did not pay 12 1/2 per cent. of the tax assessed at or before the time of the presentation of the appeal. The Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax applied the provision to section 25(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, which reads as follows :

(2.) IT is necessary to state that the proviso was added by section 8 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1951 (Bihar Act VII of 1951), which came into force on the 1st of April, 1951. For the accounting year 1950-51 a notice under section 19 was issued against the assessee on the 12th June, 1951, and the assessment was made by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer on "best judgment" basis on the 3rd August, 1952. IT was held by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer that the assessee was liable to pay a tax of Rs. 1,58,541-1-0 on the estimated income of Rs. 3,16,651. Against this assessment order also, the assessee presented an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax This appeal was also dismissed on the ground that the assessee had failed to to pay 12 1/2 per cent. of the tax assessed under the proviso to section 25(1) of the Bihar Agricultural Income-tax Act.

(3.) FOR the accounting year 1950-51 the date of notice under section 19(2) of the Act is the 12th June, 1951, which is later than the date when the proviso to section 25(1) was inserted by the amending Bihar Act VII of 1951. It is manifest, therefore, that for the accounting year 1950-51, the proviso applies and the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax was right in rejecting the petition of appeal of the assessee for failure to pay the prescribed proportion of tax. FOR the accounting year 1949-50, however, the legal position is different. The notice under section 19(2) of the Act was issued on the 4th July, 1950, which is, therefore, the date of the initiation of the assessment proceedings. The amendment of section 25(1) came into effect on the 1st of April, 1951, long after the initiation of the assessment proceeding and the commencement of the lis. I am, therefore, of opinion that for the accounting year 1949-50 the proviso to section 25(1) of the Act does not apply and the appeal of the assessee is governed by the old law, and the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax ought not to have required the payment of the prescribed proportion of the tax before entertaining the appeal. I hold, therefore, that for the accounting year 1949-50, the Deputy Commissioner ought not to have rejected the petition of appeal of the assessee for failure to pay the prescribed proportion of the tax.