VEERATHARADHYA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two revision petitions preferred by an Assessee under the Mysore Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the 'Act'. They relate to the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66.

(2.) The Assessee grows coffee, areca and mangoes. The method of accouning regularly employed by the Assessee is the cash basis. The Assessing Authority, while assessing the income for the assessment years prior to 1964-65 had computed the Assessee's income from coffee crop on the basis of valuation on points declared by the Indian Coffee Board in respect of such crop under the 2nd proviso to S.7 of the Act. For the Assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, the Assessee submitted returns of his income on the cash basis of accounting, but the Assessing Authority, while accepting the income in respect of areca and mangoes on the cash basis, computed the income from coffee crop in accordance with the 2nd proviso to S.7 as in the earlier assessments. The reason given is that since the assessment for the previous year was concluded on mercantile basis of accounts, it has to be continued as such. In the appeals preferred, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the contention of the Assessee that his income should be computed on the cash basis of accounting employed. The Deputy Commissioner observed that the assessments were made by consent and that the Assessee having consented to the particular mode of assessment, it was not open to him to prefer an appeal or revision against the consent orders. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals on two grounds viz., (1) that in all the previous years prior to the relevant assessment years, the Assessee's income was assessed on the mercantile basis and (2) that the 'point basis' was adopted after obtaining the consent of the Assessee thereto. The relevant portion of the Tribunal's Order reads thus:

(3.) If the assessing authority had stated in his orders that in his opinion the income irom coffee cannot properly be deduced on the basis of tne metnod of accounting adopted by the assessee, the order of the Tribunal could have been sustained. We asked the learned High Court Government Pleader to point out if the assessment orders contained such an expression of opinion by the Assessing Authority. He rightly conceded mat the Assessing Authority has not so stated.