CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts(2002) 04 KAR CK 0037

H.D. Ramegowda vs The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka Zone, Bangalore

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 3 April 2002 · Citation: (2002) 52 KarLJ 274

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Sreedhar Rao, J · G. C. Bharuka, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision Petition No. 209 of 2002 (KAIT)
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 338 words

G.C. Bharuka, J.-This revision petition has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 27-7-2001 passed by the Revisional Authority under Section 55 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957.

2.

The assessment year involved is 1995-96. During the course of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has found that the sale price of AP coffee and AC coffee being too low as compared to the market price, adopted the same at Rs. 90/- per kg. and Rs. 45/- per kg. respectively and completed the assessment. Before doing so, he had issued pre-assessment notice inviting the objections. The assessee did not raise any objections for making the assessment on the above basis so far as it relates to the coffee per kg. is concerned. Being aggrieved by certain additions, he preferred an appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Shimoga.

3.

The First Appellate Authority reduced the rate adopted by the Assessing Officer to Rs. 70/- in respect of AP coffee and Rs. 40/- in respect of AC coffee, which resulted in reducing the agricultural income of the assessee by Rs. 3,13,500/-. It appears the Appellate Authority did so of his own accord, since the assessee in the grounds of appeal had not raised any objections with regard to the additions on the sale price adopted by the Assessing Officer. Further, the Appellate Authority had based his finding regarding the reduction of rate of sale on the basis of some schedule rate.

4.

Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes being the Revisional Authority under Section 35 of the Act, initiated suo motu proceedings and issued notice to the petitioner-assessee. After hearing the assessee, having found that the relief on the ground of sale price of coffee had been granted by the First Appellate Authority in an arbitrary manner, set aside the revision to the above extent. We do not find any question of law arises for our interference under the revisional jurisdiction.

5.

The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.