AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.—This revision is filed u/s 54 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1955 to revise the order of the
Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "" Appellate Tribunal), Madras dated 08.01.2002 passed in
A.T.A. No. 18 of 20 01, raising the following substantial questions of law:
(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras was right in
law in holding that disallowance could be restricted to 20% of the expenditure incurred for use of all vehicles for private purposes due to non
maintenance of log books?
(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras was right in
law in holding that disallowance could be restricted to 20% on probable private use of the vehicles inspite of the fact that the trip sheets produced
do not indicate the use of vehicles for private purposes.
(c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras was right in
law in restricting the disallowance of 20% inspite of the fact that the trip sheets maintained by the assessee clearly indicate the movement of the
vehicles from place to place with date time and purpose of visit, which would prove that the vehicles were used for agricultural purposes only?
(d) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras was right in
law in not considering the fact that lorries were used within the Estate for transporting coffee cherry and there cannot be private use of any such
vehicle and further in respect of jeeps in the Estate, the same were provided to the Estate Manager exclusively for his use and hence there cannot
be any personal use by the company warranting disallowance of expenditure?
(e) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras was right in
law in not considering the fact that there cannot be any personal use of vehicles by a company as it is not a living person registered under the
Companies Act having perpetual entity?
(f) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras was right in law
that the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner, Coimbatore was based on a report by the AITO vide letter dated 5.8.2001, copy of which was
not furnished to the Applicants herein, which is against the principles of natural justice and restricting the disallowance to 2 0% of the total
expenditure for use of vehicles for private purposes?
(g) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras was right in
law in restricting disallowance to 20% as in the original assessment completed by the AITO, Pollachi, a total agricultural income of Rs. 8,53,432/-
has been determined, after making a disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 5,85,662/- which includes Rs. 1,65,964/- in respect of expenditure on
maintenance of vehicles?
(h) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras was right in
law in holding that there was necessity for the usage of lorries for private purposes when the Directors have their own cars?
(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras was right in law
in holding that the earlier order passed by them covered the present case while so it related only to restriction of expenditure in respect of
motorcycle and not in relation to any other vehicles in the estate?
The brief facts leading to the above revision, are as follows: The assessee is a Public Limited Company holding 665.14 acres of land. They are
engaged in growing coffee crop of Arabica and Robusta varieties. The relevant assessment year is 2000-01. The assessee company has filed
income and expenditure showing agricultural income at Rs. 2,87,770/-. The Assessing Officer arrived at the taxable income at Rs. 8,53,432/- and
demanded a tax of Rs. 2,03,059/- after adjusting the advance tax already paid. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer disallowed
the amount of Rs. 5,85,662.45 under various heads of expenses. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal to the Assistant
Commissioner (Agricultural Income Tax), Coimbatore. The said Assistant Commissioner (AIT), confirmed the assessment and dismissed the
appeal. Against the order of the said Assistant Commissioner (AIT), the assessee filed an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal
restricted the disallowance to 20% as against 25% by the lower authorities in respect of maintenance of vehicles and partly allowed the appeal.
The counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the Appellate Tribunal was wrong in restricting the disallowance to 20% on probable
private use of vehicles inspite of the fact that the trip sheets do not indicate the use of vehicles for private purposes.
The learned Special Govt. Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the State submitted that the Appellate Tribunal had considered all the relevant
materials and restricted the disallowance to 20% in respect of maintenance of vehicles. Hence the finding of the Appellate Tribunal was based on
evidence and there is no question of law involved for consideration of this Court.
We heard the counsel. The Appellate Tribunal in Para 17 of the impugned order, held as follows:
The expenditure on the maintenance of vehicles was claimed for lorry, Tata truck, Mahindra Jeep and Willy''s Jeep. The appellants were
maintaining trip sheets. However, log book was not maintained. They submit that there was no personal use of the vehicles by the Directors who
have their own cars. Considering similar matter in the case of the appellants in A.T.A. No. 40/98 dated 13.4.98, we have held that the
disallowance for possible personal use could reasonably be restricted to 20% as against 25%. In this case also, as the appellants are maintaining
trip sheets for non-maintenance of log books, disallowance can be restricted to 20%.
The Appellate Tribunal merely followed the earlier order of the assessee''s own case relating to the assessment year 1997-98 in Appeal No.
9/98 dated 10.10.1998 and had restricted the disallowance to 20%. The earlier Appellate Tribunal order forms part of the typed set and we have
gone through the order. In the said earlier Appellate Tribunal''s order, the Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer with a
direction to verify the details of expenditure and allow the claim in accordance with law. In pursuance of the remand order of the Appellate
Tribunal, the Assessing Officer passed a consequential order vide Ref: G.I.R. No. 23/97-98 dated 21.09.1999 and allowed the claim of
expenditure relating to maintenance of motor vehicles.
In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order with a direction to the Assessing Officer to consider the issue after giving opportunity to
the assessee and pass orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, the tax case is disposed of. No costs.