K. M. MOHAMMED KUTTY vs COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL Income Tax AND OTHERS.

M. M. PAREED PILLAY J. - The petitioner is an assessee to agricultural Income Tax under the third respondent. For the accounting year from July 2, 1980, to June 30, 1981 (assessment year 1982-83) and from July 1, 1981, to June 30, 1982 (assessment year 1983-84), the petitioner had submitted the returns and audited books of account. The returns submitted by him were not accepted by the third respondent and he issued exhibits P-1 and P-2 reassessment notices dated May 24, 1987, and May 25, 1987, for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. The contention of the petitioner is that the returns were not accepted on the basis of the inspection report on February 14, 1985, and that is totally wrong on the part of the third respondent. The petitioner filed objections, exhibits P-3 and P-4. The assessments were completed as per exhibits P-5 and P-6.

The petitioner contended that without any objective assessment of the objection put forward by him and relying on a subsequent inspection report, the third respondent competed the assessment as per exhibits P-5 and P-6 and that it cannot be sustained. Counsel relied on Ruby Rubber Works Ltd. Vs. Agricultural Income Tax Officer-I and Others, and contended that the third respondent went wrong in placing reliance upon the inspection report dated February 14, 1985, for determining the tax for a period much anterior to it. It is also submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the inspection was without notice and hence at any rate no reliance can be placed on the same. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the assessments were completed not solely on the basis of the inspection report but taking into consideration the previous returns filed by the petitioner and other matters relevant for the purpose and so it cannot be assailed before this court, especially when appeals and revision filed by the petitioner were rejected by the authorities concerned.

The petitioner had filed appeals against exhibits P-5 and P-6 assessments before the second respondent. Exhibits P-7 and P-8 are the appeal memoranda. Exhibits P-9 and P-10 are the orders of the second respondent. The matter was taken in revision by the petitioner. Exhibits P-11 and P-12 are the revision memoranda. Exhibits P-13 is the revisional order.

Exhibit P-5 assessment order shows that the third respondent had taken into consideration the data supplied by the petitioner for the years 1978-79 to 1980-81. The third respondent found that the returns submitted by the petitioner show that the yield diminished year by year. The third respondent examined the contentions raised by the petitioner and reduced the yield to that of 1981-82, i.e., 14,055 kgs. instead of 17,020 kgs. Accordingly, the proposal was modified.

While making exhibit P-6 assessment the data furnished by the petitioner for the years 1978-79 to 1982-83 were considered. Considering the income conceded and fixed for earlier years, the yield was estimated by the third respondent.

The contention of the petitioner that exhibits P-5 and P-6 assessments were made solely on the basis of the inspection report made on February 14, 1985, is devoid of merit. The third respondent has taken the relevant aspects into consideration and determined the tax. As exhibits P-5 and P-6 assessment order have been confirmed in exhibits P-9 P-10 and P-13 and as the petitioner could not point out any legal infirmity warranting this courts interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India, I hold that the original petition is liable to be dismissed.

In this context, it is useful to refer to K.P. Abraham Vs. Agricultural Income Tax Officer, , where this court held that when a particular question of fact or law is decided in one year and an identical matter or question comes up for consideration in the subsequent year, the decision rendered in the previous year will be certainly "good and cogent evidence" in the subsequent year when a similar question falls to be determined. In the above decision, it is also held that so long as the best judgment assessment cannot be found to be arbitrarily made the High Court cannot interfere with it in writ proceedings, As the petitioner could not show that the estimate made by the third respondent is not in accordance with law and as the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority had considered the matter and confirmed the order of the third respondent, this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot probe into the matter with regard to the quantum and make its own estimate in the matter.

The petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought in the original petition. The original petition is dismissed.