STATE OF KERALA Vs. RAMAKRISHNAN M V

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE reference is under Section 60(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, of the following question of law :

(2.) THE assessment year is 1980-81 corresponding to the accounting year ending on March 31, 1980. THE assessee had carried on tapioca cultivation in about 50 hectares of land obtained by him on lease from the forest department. THE assessee's case was that he had not derived any income from tapioca during the accounting year, his case being that the variety of tapioca cultivated by him took a longer time to mature and, therefore, income from the tapioca cultivated was not received during the relevant accounting period. THE assessing authority did not accept this contention and made an assessment which included an estimated income from tapioca of Rs. 82,850. THE assessee took up the matter in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Palghat, who dismissed the appeal. THE contention of non-receipt of income from tapioca was repeated before the appellate authority also, but it did not find acceptance with him. THE second appeal was filed before the Appellate Tribunal. THE Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was force in the assessee's contention that the variety of tapioca cultivated by him called Velangs took more time to mature and that the yield will be available only after about 11/2 years. THE Tribunal, therefore, held that the income from tapioca cultivation brought to assessment would not have been derived during the accounting period in question and, therefore, there was no justification to uphold the assessment of the estimated income from tapioca cultivation made by the assessing authority. THE appeal was thus allowed directing deletion of the tapioca income from the assessment.

(3.) THE application was objected to by the assessee on the ground that the bar arising out of the revisional order had not been raised before the Tribunal and, therefore, questions Nos. 1 and 3 were not liable to be referred to this court. But the Tribunal stated that the question raised was an important one, which required a decision by the High Court and accordingly referred the question extracted by us earlier for the opinion of this court. Question No. 2 was not referred. Income-tax Reference No. 40 of 1990 is the reference so made.