APPAVU SUNDARAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act. THE respondent is the Revenue. In this revision, we are concerned with the assessment year 1987-88. THE assessee-revision petitioner assails the common order passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated February 1, 1991, in so far as it relates to the assessment year 1987-88. THE revision petitioner purchased the property in his name, in the names of his two minor sons and other near relations. Altogether the property was purchased in the names of five persons. No separate accounts were maintained by the aforesaid five persons. THE revision petitioner maintained a consolidated account. It was not discernible therefrom the nature and extent of agricultural operations conducted and the actual volume of yield obtained and expenses incurred individually. THE assessing authority, the first appellate authority and also the Appellate Tribunal held that the accounts are not acceptable. THEy were rejected and a best judgment assessment was resorted to. THE yield was estimated on the basis of local inspection conducted on January 25, 1984. THE assessing authority also allowed reasonable expenses, considering the previous year's assessment. Before the Appellate Tribunal, the revision petitioner did not dispute the rejection of the returns and the yield estimated based on local inspection. He did not dispute also the expenses allowed except tapping wages and relative bonus payment claim. In this court, the controversy is only regarding tapping wages. It is contended that the authorities declined to allow adequate tapping expenses. THE Appellate Tribunal has not adopted a scientific or proper method in allowing proper tapping expenses.

(2.) WE heard counsel for the petitioner as also counsel for the respondent-Revenue. In a very elaborate and detailed order, the Appellate Tribunal dealt with this plea in paragraph 9. The total extent of the rubber estate, their situation and lie in blocks, the tapping expenses claimed for the total number of days and the figures relating thereto, the yield per block, etc., have been discussed in detail. After discussing the above details, the Appellate Tribunal held that the amounts allowed by the assessing authority towards tapping expenses for all the years under appeal before the Tribunal in the case of all the appellants (including the revision petitioner) is comparatively higher than that covered by the guidelines. It was also held that there is no justifiable ground for interference by the Appellate Tribunal.