According to the assessee the recovery proceedings companymenced only when, the attachment was effected and number earlier and that they companyld be said to companymence only when some actual process was issued under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, Act 1 of 1951.
Now as regards the years 136OF and 1361F the evidence which was admitted by the Division Bench showed that the Deputy Commissioner, who was the assessing authority, had made orders directing the Tehsildar to realize various sums as arrears of land revenue.
60 All.
That date being within one year from June 28, 1960 the recovery proceedings were held to be within time.
These dates were within one year from June 28, 1960 which was the last date of instalment for the years 136OF and 1361F. The question which falls for determination is whether proceedings can be said to companymence for recovery when the assessing authority makes a motion within s. 32 1 to the Collector for recovery of the agricultural income tax and penalty as an arrear of land revenue.
743 of 1968 and the respondent in A. No.
The date of last instalment for the year 1363F was September 19, 1958.
As regards the assessment for the year 1362F it has been pointed out on behalf of the assessee that the original orders passed for taking proceedings for realization of tax were missing from the record.
C. Manchanda, N. N. Sharma, and C. P. Lal, for the appellant in C.A. No.
It appears that the depart mental authorities did number produce satisfactory evidence relating to the making of orders for realization of the tax in respect of the year 1362F inasmuch as the original orders were number produced.
The High Court, however, relied on the entries of the registers of demand and companylection and was satisfied that some order for realization of tax for 1362F was received by the Tehsildar of Lakhimpur in July or August 1960.
The question which arose was whether the recovery proceedings were companymenced before March 10, 1962.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated August 8, 1967 of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in Special Appeal No.
It was pointed out that these orders were made on various dates ranging between October 9, 1960 to December 2, 1960.
In the appeal filed by the departmental authorities it has number been shown in what manner the High Court was in error in holding that the proceedings for recovery of tax and penalty for the year 1363F were barred by time.
an endorsement on October 5, 1959.
D. Karkhanis and O. P. Rana, for the respondents in A. No.
84 of 1965.
The order of attachment having been made on March 10, 1962 was clearly beyond one year from June 28, 1960 and September 19, 1958.
As the assessee made default in payment of the amount of tax and penalty, proceedings were taken against him for the realization thereof and attachment orders were issued by the Tehsildar on March 10, 1962.
On May 21, 1962 the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court praying that all companyrcive processes for the realization of the taxes and the penalties including the sale of land attached be quashed.
The learned judges of the High court as stated before, saw the register and after examination of the entries therein were satisfied that an order had been made for realization of tax within one year from June 28, 19610.
The assessee was assessed to agricultural income tax under the U.P. Agricultural Income tax Act, Act III of 1949 hereinafter referred to as the Act for the years 1360 Fasli July 1, 1952 to June 30, 1953 , 1361 Fasli July 1, 1953 to June 30, 1954 , 1362 Fasli July 1, 1954 to June 30, 1955 , 1363 Fasli July 1, 1955 to June 30, 1956 .
744 of 1968 .
The departmental authorities preferred a Special Appeal to a Division Bench and during the pendency of the appeal sought to produce additional evidence to show that the proceedings relating to recovery had companymenced within time.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The Division Bench admitted additional evidence and after taking that into companysideration held that proceedings were number barred in respect of the demand relating to the years 1360F to 1362F. It was, however, found that proceedings for recovery of tax and penalty for the year 1363F were barred by time.
L.J. 360.
In the result both appeals fail and are dismissed.No proceeding for the recovery of any sum payable under this Act shall be companymenced after the expiration of one year from the date on which the last instalment fixed under section 30 falls due Provided It was companymon ground before the High Court and has number been disputed before us that the date of last instalment for the years 1360F to 1362F was June 28, 1960.
A learned single judge allowed the petitions and granted the relief claimed with regard to the assessments relating to all the years on the ground that proceedings for recovery had number companymenced within the time prescribed by the Act.
As the order was made on October 1, 1959 it was beyond one year from September 19, 1958.
226 of the Constitution filed by the assessee were partly allowed.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. These cross appeals arise out of a judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court by which the petitions under Art.
743 of 1968 and the appellants in C.A No, 744 of 1968 .
743 and 744 of 1968.
Thus, according to the High Court, the proceedings for recovery companymenced with the making of these orders, Annexures A 1 to A 5 .
The assessee as also the Deputy Commissioner, Kheri, have preferred appeals challenging that part of the order which has gone against them.
It appears that certain penalties were also imposed.
The assessment orders relating to the first two years were made on November 23, 1959 and in respect of the subsequent years they were made on October 21, 1959 and August 13, 1957 respectively.
