STATE OF KERALA Vs. RAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The reference is under S.60(1) of the 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 31st March, 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 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 as 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. 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 nature and that the yield will be available only after about 1 1/2 years. The Tribunal therefore held mat 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.) Simultaneously with the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee also filed a revision before the Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax, Trivandrum under S.34 of the Act as AITRP.No. 22 of 1986 challenging the very same assessment, inter alia on the ground that no income from tapioca had been received during the relevant accounting period. The Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax dismissed the revision by his order dated 11-4-1986. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner who heard the appeal subsequently and disposed it of on 27-9-1988 relied on this order to reject another contention Of the assessee raised before him, about the inclusion of the income from the property of some minors in the assessment. Curiously however, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not take note of the fact that the assessee had challenged the assessment impugned before him in revision and lost, which by itself was bound to prove fatal to the appeal. Curiously again, when the matter came up in appeal before the Tribunal, none brought the revisional order to the notice of the Tribunal and no contention was raised that the assessability or otherwise of the tapioca income was already the subject of decision by the Commissioner. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, as mentioned earlier, in ignorance of the Commissioner's order in the parallel revision petition. The Revenue thereafter sought reference of the following questions of law: -