AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.V. Kamat, J.—This is a revision petition u/s 78 of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991, a second revision.
For the assessment year 1988-89, for which the previous year ended on June 30, 1987, the petitioner as an assessee filed his return showing a net agricultural income of Rs. 15,000. It appears that during this accounting year the estate was given for slaughter tapping to two persons, P.J. George and Antony George. The assessing authority did not accept the return and proposed to complete the assessment by estimating the yield and income.
No accounts had been produced in support of the return and in the absence thereof assessment was proceeded for completion on the basis of best judgment assessment, treating that the entire trees are under second year of slaughter tapping and accordingly the net income was ascertained at Rs. 1,77,125. The particulars in regard thereto as found from the order of the assessing authority are as hereunder :
Rs.
Rs.
"Rubber : 11 block yield 1,000 kgs. per block--12,100 kgs. valued at Rs. 17.25 per kg.
2,08,725.00
Less : Expenses allowed
Tapping and other expenses at Rs. 2,000 per block
22,000.00
Watcher salary
9,600.00
31,600.00
Net income
1,77,125.00
i.e., Rs. 1,77,130.00
The Assessing Officer has based the best judgment assessment as the estate was inspected by the Central Intelligence Squad, Trivandrum, on December 27, 1985, revealing through the inspection report in regard thereto that the estate was under slaughter tapping from April, 1985. The said inspection report is found to have been prepared in the name of Syed Alavi and George as slaughter tapping contractors. The inspection report also further recorded that employees including temporary tappers were working in the estate for slaughter tapping. Factually it is held that the estate was under slaughter tapping from April, 1985, and thus under the second year of tapping during the accounting period ending on June 30, 1987. Normally, yield was taken into consideration for the second year of tapping as reasonable especially in the absence of accounts or evidences in regard thereto, to be at Rs. 2,000 per block. This was in spite of the situation that it was found at Rs. 4,000 for the previous year, because at that time the yield was double the yield estimated for the year in question. The authority rejected the expenses sought to be incurred for police protection, legal expenses, road maintenance as not having been proved with the accounts, vouchers or receipts in regard thereto.
The revision before the Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax, Trivandrum, u/s 77 of the Act was contested by the petitioner-assessee only with regard to the ground that the estate had been under a slaughter tapping agreement with Syed Alavi and George from April, 1985, onwards and by reason thereof the assessment smacked of arbitrary character. In support thereof reliance is placed on the finding of the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax in R. P. No. 50/88/B1/2690 of 1988, dated August 7, 1988, to the effect that Mr. Syed Alavi and Mr. George had not taken the slaughter tapping of Mukattumala A, B and C estates and further that the assessee-company had entered into an agreement with P.J. George and Antony for slaughter tapping with effect from April 1, 1986. On the basis of the above situation, it was contended that the rubber plantation of 1954 was cut and removed in 1988 for replantation which would show that as a consequence it would never yield 1,100 kgs. per block and nobody will remove such high yielding trees when the price of rubber is rising high every day. The contention came up for examination and in the process the learned Commissioner has observed that there is no evidence produced by the assessee to substantiate the contention. It is observed that Shri Alavi was present at the time of inspection and in R. P. No. 50 of 1988, dated August 7, 1988, the Deputy Commissioner cancelled the assessment on the ground that the Department had not proved the genuineness of the contract between the estate and Syed Alavi, a position against Mr. Syed Alavi. It is observed in the process that nowhere during the assessment stage for the current year or earlier years the fact of inspection and the result thereof was disputed. The learned Commissioner has relied upon the contents of the reply on behalf of the assessee to the pre-assessment for the year 1986-87 to the effect that necessary documents were available with the slaughter party at the time of inspection. Additionally, it is also observed as a fact found on inspection that 83 tappers were engaged in a day. On the basis of the material on record, the learned Commissioner observed that there is enough material on record to reject the pleading of the slaughter tapping agreement.
It is necessary to pinpoint that this contention of slaughter tapping agreement does not appear to have been urged and raised before the assessing authority which has relied on the strength of the inspection report dated December 27, 1985.
Even otherwise, it is plain that the question as to whether there was slaughter tapping agreement would be a neat and pure question of fact which has been finally settled by several factors taken into consideration by the authorities below.
The present petition, in the nature of a second revision would have narrow limits, even within the view that is available to us, independently also it would be next too impossible to come to any conclusion other than arrived at by the authorities below.
For the above reasons the petition stands dismissed.