G.E. Thippiah vs The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone-ii, Karnataka, Bangalore

G.C. Bharuka, J.-This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-assessee under Section 55 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957.

The petitioner is a coffee planter. The assessment year involved is 1997-98. The Assessing Officer under the assessment order Annexure-C has found that the average yield of coffee as shown in the assessment order in question was 227 kgs. per acre, whereas in the previous three years the average yield was found to be 310 kgs. per acre. Despite notice the assessee had failed to give any acceptable reasons for fall in the yield. Accordingly, an addition of 15,000 kgs. of coffee was made. Similarly, the Assessing Officer found that the petitioner had claimed additional expenditure of Rs. 1,20,000/- and Rs. 90,000/- under the temporary wages and contract wages. Since there was no occasion for showing these extra expenditure as compared to earlier years, the claim under these heads was disallowed.

On appeal by the petitioner-assessee, the First Appellate Authority directed the Assessing Officer to allow the expenditure as claimed by the petitioner on the ground that since vouchers, according to the expenditure, has been placed by him, the same could not be disallowed. He also directed the Assessing Officer to work out the additions of low yield of coffee shown.

The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes having found that the order of the First Appellate Authority being prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, initiated suo motu revisional proceedings under Section 35 of the Act. After notice to the petitioner and giving reasonable opportunity of hearing, has passed the impugned order dated 28-8-2001, Annexure-C, holding the view taken by the order of the Assessing Officer on both the above counts is a well-reasoned and is based on material brought on record. It is a case of best judgment assessment based on cogent materials. As has been consistently, held in such assessments, there has to be some amount of guess-work. In the said view of the matter, in our opinion no question of law arises for our interference under revisional jurisdiction.

The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.