N BALAKRISHNA PANICKER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, an assessee under the Agrl. IT Act, seeks to raise the following question for the decision of this Court :

(2.) THE petition relates to the asst. yr. 1985-86. In respect of all previous years the income from the rubber cultivation was assessed in the individual capacity of the petitioner. The assessing authority issued notice under S. 17(2) of the Act on 13th May, 1985 requiring the appellant to submit the return of his agricultural income for the year in question. The petitioner did not respond. The assessing authority then issued notice under S. 17(4) of the Act on 3rd Sept., 1985 for which also there was no response. The assessing authority thereupon sent another notice under s. 17(4) of the Act on 9th May, 1986. To this notice the respondent replied on 21st May, 1986, that his rubber plantation has been registered as a firm by name and style "Dwarka Enterprises". But even then no return was filed nor any document or records produced to prove the existence of the firm. The assessing authority thereupon sent another letter dt. 4th July, 1987, requiring the petitioner to produce all documents and records in support of the claim of existence of the firm and also to file a return of agricultural income for the year in question. There was no response to this notice. It was thereafter the assessing authority issued a pre-assessment notice dt. 23rd July, 1987 proposing to complete the assessment on estimation basis and in the individual capacity of the petitioner. To this he sent a reply dt. 25th March, 1987 again contending that a plantation has been converted into a firm but still no records were produced regarding the registration of the firm nor any return filed. The assessing authority thereupon sent letters dt. 18th Jan., 1988 and 17th Feb., 1988 requiring the petitioner to file the return for the year and to file application for registration of the firm as required under S. 27 of the Act. These directions were not complied with. It was under these circumstances, the assessing authority sent letter dt. 2nd May, 1988 proposing to reject the claim of partnership firm and to complete the assessment for the year as proposed in the pre-assessment notice dt. 23rd Aug., 1987.

(3.) THE income for the asst. yr. 1985-86 was treated as the personal income of the petitioner since the authorities came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not proved that the income was as a matter of fact, received by a partnership firm. Above is a finding of fact. It was on this finding the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the attempt of the petitioner was only to divert the income from the petitioner to that of the alleged firm. We, therefore, find that no question of law arises in this case for decision by this Court. The petition stands dismissed.