J.B. Koshy, J. 1. This tax revision case is filed by a registered company against the agricultural income-tax assessments relating to the assessment years 1970-71 to 1987-88 (18 years). The assessee owns an estate mainly planted with cardamom. The total extent of the estate was originally about 688 acres. The Government took the contention that the above estate was vested with the Government as private forest under the Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. In June, 1977, on the basis of the decision of the Forest Tribunal, 262 acres were returned to the company. According to the assessee, the above land was never cultivated with rubber and for that purpose they have produced annexure "A" inspection report. Assessment orders were made against all these years showing rubber also as one of the crops. For the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1973-74 appeals were filed against the assessments and the appeals were dismissed. Further proceedings were not taken up. With regard to the assessment year 1972-73, even though the assessment order was served on the company or. April 20, 1976, no appeal was filed. Other assessment orders were received by the company on or before October 11, 1990.
2. Eighteen revision petitions for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1987-88 (18 years) were filed before the Deputy Commissioner on March 26, 1991, under Section 34 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1950 Act"). They were rejected by a common order annexure "E", dated November 22, 1991. For the years 1974-75, 1977-78 and 1978-79 to 1983-84 the tax assessed was above Rs. 75,000 and, therefore, they were rejected due to lack of jurisdiction. The Deputy Commissioner considered on the merits the revision applications for the other eight years, namely, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88. The main contention of the petitioner in the revision petitions was that notices and assessment orders were not served on the principal officer of the company and hence the assessments are without jurisdiction and null and void in view of Sections 2(p), 35(1) and 64 of the 1950 Act.
3. Section 35(1) of the 1950 Act provides as follows :
"35. Income escaping assessment--(1) If for any reason agricultural income chargeable to tax under this Act has escaped assessment in any financial year or has been assessed at too low a rate, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer may, at any time within five years of the end of that year, serve on the person liable to pay the tax or in the case of a company on the principal officer thereof a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 17 and may proceed to assess or reassess such income and the provisions of this Act shall so far as may be, apply accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that Sub-section."
4. Section 64(2) of the 1950 Act reads as follows :
"64. Manner of service of notice.--. . .
(2) Any such notice or requisition may, in the case of a firm, or Hindu undivided family be addressed to any member of the firm or to the Manager, Karnavan or Yejman, as the case may be, or any adult member of the family and, in the case of any other association of persons be addressed to the principal officer thereof."
5. Section 2(p) of the 1950 Act defines "principal officer" as :
"(i) the secretary, treasurer, manager or agent of the company or association, or
(ii) any person connected with the company or association upon whom the Agricultural Income-tax Officer has served a notice of his intention of treating him as principal officer thereof ;"
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that statutory notices and assessment orders were not addressed to the principal officer. There is no proper service and as such there is a jurisdictional defect and, therefore, they are entitled to file revision application at any point of time.
7. It is the contention of the petitioner that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Y. Narayana Chetty v. 770 [1959] 35 ITR 388 and the decision of this court in P.N. Sasikumar v. CIT [1988] 170 ITR 80, the assessment orders should have been issued in the name of the principal officer. Then only it is legally served, notwithstanding the fact that notices addressed in the name of the company were accepted by the director in charge without any objection. It was further contended that notices were also not served on the secretary, treasurer, manager or agent of the company.
8. The Deputy Commissioner noticed that even though notices and assessment orders were posted in the name of the company, they were accepted by the director in charge and, therefore, such contentions are not tenable.
9. With regard to the assessment years (10 years) where the Deputy Commissioner rejected the revisions for lack of jurisdiction due to monetary limit, one common revision application dated April 4, 1991, was filed before the Commissioner under Section 77 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1991 Act"), which came into force on April 1, 1991. It is not stated how one common revision application can be filed against ten independent assessment orders for ten different assessment years.
10. A second common revision application for eight assessment years was filed against the revisional order of the Deputy Commissioner (where the matter was considered on merit and dismissed) before the Commissioner under Section 77 of the 1991 Act. It was rejected on the ground that no revision application is maintainable under the 1991 Act as the Deputy Commissioner has passed the order as Commissioner. The revision applications directly filed before the Commissioner were rejected because the assessment orders or demand notices did not accompany the revision application and the defects were not cured in spite of opportunities given.
11. The revision applications filed under Section 77 of the 1991 Act for the years 1970-71 to 1973-74 and 1984-85 to 1987-88 (8 years) against the order of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 34 of the 1950 Act are clearly not maintainable. Even though the above order was passed after the coming into force of the 1991 Act, no revision application will lie under Section 77 of the 1991 Act because the order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 34 of the Act exercising the powers of the Commissioner and such power continued to be vested with the Deputy Commissioner in view of Section 99(4) of the 1991 Act which is as follows :
"99. Repeal and saving.--. . . .
(4) Notwithstanding such repeal of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (Act XXII of 1950), any proceedings pending before any agricultural income-tax authority, Appellate Tribunal or High Court at the commencement of this Act, shall be continued and finally decided or determined under the provisions of that Act."
12. Here, while passing orders under Section 34, the Deputy Commissioner acted as Commissioner and, therefore, no further revision will lie to the Commissioner under the new Act. Apart from the above, under the new Act revision applications can be filed before the Commissioner under Section 77 of the 1991 Act from the orders of the Deputy Commissioner passed under Section 16 or 75 of the 1991 Act. Section 16 deals with orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner on the status of a charitable trust or institution. Section 75 speaks about suo motu revisions and not revisions filed by parties. Therefore, no further revision application will lie against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on the basis of the petition filed under Section 34 of the 1950 Act. Therefore, the Commissioner was right in holding that the revision applications were not maintainable.
13. With regard to the common revision application filed for ten assessment years where the assessment was more than Rs. 75,000 the Commissioner rejected the application because they were not accompanied by the assessment orders or demand notices. Under Section 34 of the 1950 Act read with the Rules no application for revision shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by the assessment orders, demand notices and satisfactory proof of the payment of tax admitted by the petitioner to be due and it should be filed in the prescribed form, Under Section 77 of the 1991 Act also a revision application should be filed "within a period of thirty days from the date on which a copy of the order was communicated to him in the manner prescribed". The revision application dated March 21, 1991, of the petitioner before the Commissioner was filed on April 4, 1991, that is, after the coming into force of the new Act and a copy of the order communicated to the company was not enclosed as prescribed. Even though defects were pointed out they were not cured. The petitioner did not attend the hearing when the cases were posted for hearing. On that ground also, the Commissioner rejected this case. It cannot be stated that the above grounds were wrong or invalid.
14. Apart from technical points, even on merit, we see no merit in the instant tax revision case. The Deputy Commissioner has found that notices were issued in the name of the company on January 20, 1971. Postal acknowledgment is signed by the director in charge. In respect of the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1973-74 the director in charge also filed appeals against the assessment orders. Having received the assessment orders by the principal officer as defined under Section 2(p) of the 1950 Act and the principal officer without taking any objections regarding service of notice having filed appeals, it cannot be contended that notice was not received by the principal officer or notice addressed to the company is not enough and it should be addressed to the principal officer's name itself. In Sasikumar's case [1988] 170 ITR 80 (Ker), on the facts of that case, it was held as follows (page 84) :
"In the present case, the assessments were made on an 'association of persons'. It is an entity which is distinct and different from the various persons who are members of the unit, 'association of persons'. There is no material to show that the prescribed notices were sent to any 'association of persons' or to Sasikumar as representing the 'association of persons'. In this view of the matter, it is clear that the notices under Section 148 of the Act were not served in accordance with law and the said assessee, who was assessed, was not called upon to file the returns. The notice was addressed only to an individual, Sasikumar. The Income-tax Officer did not make it clear or plain that the proposal was to assess the 'association of persons' consisting of Sasikumar and others. So, on the basis of the notices sent, the Income-tax Officer was incompetent to assess the 'association of persons' consisting of Sasikumar and others. The entire proceedings are illegal and without jurisdiction."
15. But, in the instant case, notices were addressed in the name of the company making it clear that the assessments were made on the company and notices were sent in the name of the company and they were accepted by the director in charge who is admittedly the principal officer and who filed appeals and revision applications. Here, notices were addressed in the name of the company and not in the name of any individual persons as, in Sasikumar's case [1988] 170 ITR 80 (Ker). The notices were accepted by the director in charge who is the principal officer of the company and under Section 2(p) of the 1950 Act he accepted it only as an agent of the company. In any event, having accepted the notices addressed in the name, of the company and the company having acted upon the same by filing appeals wherein it is not disputed by the company that notices were not statutorily sent, the present contention that the assessment orders were not properly served cannot be accepted and on that ground it cannot be stated that the assessments were without jurisdiction. According to the assessee, in view of the jurisdictional question in spite of the appellate remedy available (and even if the appeals are dismissed) revision applications can be filed. The only jurisdictional question raised by the petitioner in this tax revision case was that notices were not served on the principal officer or secretary, treasurer, manager or agent of the company. We have already held that when the notice is issued in the name of the company which is accepted by the principal officer of the company as agent of the company, it cannot be stated that the notices and assessment orders are without jurisdiction and invalid as it was not addressed in the name of the principal officer.
16. There is no merit in the tax revision case and hence it is dismissed.