KEETHADATH ABDULKHADER Vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter arises out of orders passed by the 3rd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income tax and Sales Tax, Kozhikode in the purported exercise of his jurisdiction under S.34 of the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950. The challenge in this writ petition is directed to Exts. P10 and P13. Ext. P10 is the order passed by the 1st respondent, the Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Taliparamba, where under the petitioner was assessed to agricultural income tax to the tune of Rs. 10,807.65 and a surcharge of Rs. 2,759.51. Ext. P13 is the order of the 3rd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax, Kozhikode, dated 17-8-1979.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner against Ext. P13 order is that it is without considering the relevancy of the reports submitted by the Commissioner who visited the property on 27/28 of October, 1977 that the Deputy Commissioner disposed of the revision. A further submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that though as per the accounts the salary paid to Karystha came to Rs 4200/- for the year, instead of allowing that deduction in full only a sum of Rs. 1200/- was allowed by the 1st respondent, the Agricultural Income Tax Officer in Ext. P10 order, and that alone has been allowed by the Deputy Commissioner also in Ext. P13 order.

(3.) Coming to the major point raised in the writ petition, namely, the relevancy of the reports submitted by the Commissioner. I have no hesitation in holding that the 3rd respondent was clearly in error in stating as follows: