C.I. Haleema vs State of Kerala

P.A. Mohammed, J.—This batch of tax revision cases filed under s. 78 of the Kerala Agrl. IT Act, 1991, arise from a common order of the Commr. of Agrl. IT dt. 7th Dec., 1991, in AIT RP Nos. 184, 185, 186 and 187 of 1991. The assessment years involved are 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81.

The facts involved in these cases can be shortly stated thus.. Pursuant to the notice issued under s. 18(2) of the Agrl. IT Act, 1950, the assessee has filed returns for the previous years ended on 31st March, 1977, 31st March, 1978 and 31st March, 1979, declaring net income of Rs. 15,000, Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 1,000 respectively. Since those returns were found to be incorrect and incomplete, the AO issued pre-assessment notices proposing to reject the returns and to complete the assessment on best of judgment for the years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80. It was so initiated on the basis of the details gathered on local enquiries. The assessee filed reply praying that the assessment may be kept pending till the facts are verified. The officer, however, completed the assessment for the aforesaid years fixing the total income and the tax and surcharge payable thereon. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, filed appeals before the AAC. Those appeals were disposed of by a common order dt. 26th April, 1988. According to the AAC, the estimate made by the officer is too high. Considering all relevant materials the Commr. of Agrl. IT, therefore, reduced the estimate of yield of cardamom and fixed the same at 50 kgs. per acre. Thus, the appeals were partly allowed by directing the assessing authority to give modifications in view of the observation contained therein.

As far as the asst. yr. 1980-81 is concerned, the officer has initiated separate proceedings. Though the return was filed, the assessee has not produced account books. Therefore, the assessment for the said year was completed as proposed by the officer in the absence of any objection to the notice under s. 18(2) of the Act. The officer has estimated yield of cardamom at the rate of 75 Kg. per acre as in the case of previous years.

In the revisions filed under s. 34 of the Act, the Commr. of Agrl. IT by the impugned common order has granted certain reliefs to the assessee. The Commr. of Agrl. IT did not interfere in the estimate of yield of cardamom for the years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80. In respect of the asst. yr. 1980-81 the Commr. of Agrl. IT directed the officer to refix cardamom yield at the rate of 50 Kg. per acre. The assessee being not satisfied with the said order filed these tax revision cases.

The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the assessment for the years 1977-78 and 1918-79 are barred by limitation. We do not find any merit in this contention because the proceedings for assessment were initiated on the basis of the returns filed by the assessee. Of course, a notice was issued under s. 18(2) and pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner has filed the returns. Since the assessments were completed on the basis of the returns filed by the assessee, he cannot raise any question of limitation as against the completion of assessment. As far as the objection against the estimate, the Commr. of Agrl. IT after evaluating the materials on record came to the conclusion that the estimate fixed by the AAC at the rate of 50 Kgs. per acre was a very modest estimate. The conclusion of the Commr. of Agrl. IT on the question of estimate is found to be reasonable and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The next point raised by the counsel for the assessee is that the income or part of it was already subjected to tax at the hands of the transferor who is her husband. The Commr. of Agrl. IT considered the materials in that regard and ultimately observed that the assessee should be given protection from double taxation. In that view of the matter, the Commr. of Agrl. IT directed the assessing authority to recompute the assessment for the year 1978-79 in accordance with the provisions contained in s. 10 of the Act. This contention is raised by the assessee only in respect of the year 1978-79 and, therefore, this direction will not apply to any other period. We do not see any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Commr. of Agrl. IT. In our view the impugned order has been passed by the Commr. of Agrl. IT after evaluating the entire evidence available in the case. What is involved is purely a factual finding on appreciation of evidence. No questions of law are involved. That being the position, we decline to interfere under s. 78 of the Act. Accordingly these tax revision cases are dismissed. No order as to costs.