V.S. Sirpurkar, J.
1. This revision is filed against the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. A very novel question is involved in this revision.
2. The assessee is a company. It was liable to pay the agricultural income-tax and was regularly paying the tax for the relevant assessment years. For the purposes of the assessment, the assessee-company had chosen its assessment year to be from July to June, that is for the year 1990-91, its assessment year was from July 1, 1989, to June 30, 1990. So also, for the year 1991-92, the assessment year was from July 1, 1990 to June 30,1991, and for the year 1992-93, it was from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992. However, it seems that the Agricultural Income-tax Act was extensively amended with effect from April 1, 1992, and the definition of 'previous year' as it appeared earlier vide section 2(t) underwent a change. The term 'previous year' is now defined as :
' 'previous year' means twelve months ending on the 31st day of March of next preceding the year for which assessment is to be made.'
3. Accordingly, it seems that there was an assessment for the year 1992-93 considering its previous year to be from April 1, 1991 to March 31, 1992. However, there was no assessment made for the period beginning from July 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991 because the earlier assessment was up to June 30, 1990 only. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, sent a notice under section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act and required the assessment to be made for 21 months, i.e., 12 months for the period between April 1, 1991 and March 31, 1992, and nine months for the period between July 1, 1990 and March 31, 1991, The assessee raised an objection that in so far as the assessment for the period from April 1, 1991 to March 31, 1992, was concerned it had no objection but it had raised a very novel plea that in so far as the earlier period of nine months between July 1, 1990 and March 31, 1991, was concerned there was no scope for charging any agricultural income-tax. The assessee-company tried to rely upon the amended provision of section 2(t), which we have already quoted and suggested that the tax could be assessed only for the 'previous year', i.e., for the period between March 31 and April 1 of the next preceding year meaning thereby, the earlier period which was left out could not be assessed and no tax could be levied thereupon. In fact, this argument should have been rejected outright because it has absolutely no basis in law. Though the appellate authority rejected that argument, the Tribunal also has not entertained that plea but, has expressed that there should have been a separate assessment for that period. This part of the Tribunal's order that there should be a separate assessment and there cannot be a joint assessment for the 21 months is undoubtedly correct. The Tribunal, therefore, sent back the matter to the concerned Agricultural Income-tax Officer for making a fresh assessment for the period July 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991. It is against this assessment order that the assessee has come up in this tax revision.
4. According to learned counsel, the period between July 1, 1990 and March 31, 1991 should be treated as a 'blank period' or 'transition period' and there should be no agricultural income-tax levied for this period. The argument is per se incorrect. Section 3(1A) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, which is a charging section, reads as under :
'3. Charge of agricultural income-tax.-
(1) Not relevant.
(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, agricultural income-tax at the rate or rates specified in Part I of the Schedule to this Act as amended by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1971, shall be charged for each financial year commencing from the 1st April, 1972, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of every person of the previous year immediately preceding the said date.'
1. Here printed in italics.
This will clarify that the tax liability does not depend upon the 'previous year' but it actually depends upon the 'financial year'. This provision was in vogue right till the amendment was made, that is, up to April 1, 1992. From April 1, 1991 to March 31, 1992, there was a tax liability for every 'financial year', which would include the period from July 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991 also. Now because of the facility given by the unamended section 2(1) of adjusting the 'previous year', the assessment of the assessee was for the period between July and June and in that because of the amended definition of 'previous year', nine months' period was left out. That does not become a 'transition period' or 'blank period' as suggested by counsel. Under section 3(1A), which is a charging section, the liability would always be there continuously in each financial year. We, however, agree with the Tribunal that it cannot be clubbed with the assessment of the next year and should have been separately assessed. That has already been ordered by the Tribunal. We do not see any reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order and we reject the contention raised by the assessee that the period between July 1, 1990 and March 31, 1991, was a 'transition period' and, therefore, there should be no agricultural income-tax levied for this period as being without any merit.
5. The revision is dismissed but without any orders as to the costs.