| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/370603 |
| Subject | Direct Taxation |
| Court | Karnataka High Court |
| Decided On | Dec-15-1969 |
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 1783 of 1967 |
| Judge | B. Venkataswami and ;G.K. Govind Bhat, JJ. |
| Reported in | [1970]77ITR349(KAR); [1970]77ITR349(Karn) |
| Acts | Mysore Agriculture Income Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 19(4) |
| Appellant | Prabhakar Mallappa Panadare |
| Respondent | Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Bijapur |
| Advocates: | K. Srinivasan, Adv. |
Govinda Bhat, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the assessment order dated 30th October, 1964, made on one Mallappa Siddappa Panadare, father of the petitioner, under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called 'the Act', and also the notices of demand issued to the petitioner, marked as exhibits 'C' and 'E' which were served on the petitioner. The assessment in question relates to the assessment year 1963-64. The assessment was made on the petitioners father in status of a Hindu undivided family under section 19(4) of the Act. The assessee Mallappa Siddappa Panadare, died on 13th October, 1965. After the death of the assessee, notices of demand were issued to the assessee's son - the petitioner. The notice is in the name of the assessee, Mallappa Siddappa Panadare, but it was served on the petitioner. The petitioner has raised a number of grounds; but it is sufficient to refer to one ground only on which the petitioner ought to succeed.
2. The case of the petitioner is that before the making an order of assessment to the best of judgment under section 19(4) of the Act, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer did not afford to the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessment order gives the particular of the area under cultivation, the nature of the crop raised, the gross yield and the cultivations expenses. Where the assessing authority proposes to proceed under section 19(4) and makes an order of assessment to the best of judgment, the basis for the proposed assessment should have been put to the assessee and an opportunity should have been given to the assessee to show cause as to why assessment should not be made on the basis proposed. It is clear, on a perusal of the record, that no reasonable opportunity of being heard as contemplated under the second proviso to sub-section (4) of the section 19 has been given to the petitioner's father who was the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order and notices of demand made pursuant thereto cannot be supported. They are accordingly quashed.
3. No costs.