FAREESA BEGUM S M Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the findings at an inspection of holdings by the Agricultural Income Tax Officer, could be made use of incompleting the assessments for earlier years. According to the petitioner, an assessee to tax under the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 (the Act), Kochu Thomman, J. (as he then was) has held that they cannot be so used, in his decision in Ruby Rubber Works Ltd. v. Agricultural Income tax Officer, 1980 KLT 922 = (1983) 139 ITR 218. But I do not agree.

(2.) Briefly the facts. The petitioner owned six acres of land planted with cardamom. She was not in the habit of keeping any accounts, though she was an assessee under the Act. Her returns for the assessment years 1977-78 to 1980-81 (accounting years 1976-77 to 1979-80) were rejected and assessments completed to the best of judgment on December 3, 1981. But these assessments were set aside in appeal on January 4, 1983 and remitted back to the Agricultural Income Tax Officer for making fresh assessments after conducting an inspection of the petitioner's holdings. The petitioner did not however cooperate in the officer's attempts to conduct an inspection of the holdings - she did not even respond to any of the notices sent to her- with the result, fresh assessments were completed on December 20, 1983, again to the best of judgment. These assessments were also set aside in appeal on January 1, 1985 and the matter remanded to the assessing authority for denovo disposal. Again there was some non co- operation and fresh ex parte assessments were completed oh October 29, 1985 under S.18(4) of the Act. These were however set aside on application by the petitioner under S.19. The holdings were then inspected on December 17, 1985 and based on those findings a common order of assessment was completed on January 16, 1987, a copy of which is Ext. P1. This order was challenged in revision under S.34 of the Act. Apart from the dispute about the yield, there was another dispute which related to the extent of the petitioner's holdings after June 27, 1978, when she is alleged to have parted with a portion of her land. The Deputy Commissioner set aside the order in so far as it related to the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 and remitted the matter back to the Agricultural Income Tax Officer for fresh consideration of this question. We are not therefore concerned with these assessments in this writ petition. So far as the other two years are concerned, the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the estimation of the yield as reasonable, being based on the inspection held on December 17,1985, and dismissed the revision petitions for those years. A copy of the common order is Ext. P2. The petitioner sought rectification of this order, the ground for which I am unable to discern and naturally the petition stood rejected.

(3.) The assessment for 1977-78 and 1978-79 (namely Ext. P1) and its confirmation by Ext. P2 are challenged, on the only ground that the findings at the inspection held on December 17, 1985 could not be made use of to arrive at the yield during the years in question. This is stated as an absolute proposition of law and Ruby Rubber Works is stated to have held so.