VARGHESE VARGHESE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These thirty three Income Tax Referred Cases arise from a common order of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Trivandrum, dated 30-4 1973 in Agrl: Income Tax Appeal Nos. 2 to 5 of 1969 and 130 to 135 of 1969 and 300 to 303 of 1968 and 127 to 129 of 1969, 304 to 307 of 1968 and 138 to 143 of 1969 and 308 to 311 of 1968 and 136 & 137 of 1969.

(2.) The assessees are brothers and they were assessed to agricultural income tax either as individuals or legal representatives of their deceased father in respect of the assessments years 1958-59 to 1967-68. The returns of their income from their rubber estates were rejected by the assessing authority and assessments were completed on best judgment basis. The assessees failed in their appeals before the statutory authorities and hence the following questions have been referred to us by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessees:

(3.) An inspection of the assessees' premises was conducted on 11-10-1961 by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Special, Kottayam, together with the Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Moovattupuzha, who is the assessing authority. The Officers also recovered a book from the premises at the time of the inspection. From the data collected by the Officers at the time of the inspection as well as from the figures revealed by the book they came to the conclusion that the average annual yield of rubber in the estate came to 630 Ibs. per acre. The finding of the assessing authority has been challenged by the assessees on various grounds. They contend that the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 does not authorise inspection and seizure and therefore any material gathered by such inspection and seizure is inadmissible as evidence against the assessees. They further contend that the Officers relied upon certain statements alleged to have been made by the Superintendent of the Estate and the assessees' representative Shri K. M. Michael, although copies of these statements were not given to them. They were thus denied a reasonable opportunity for contradicting those statements. The assessees also contended that the total yield of 1,30,375 Ibs. shown in the book for the period from 4-5-1960 to 7-2-1961 did not represent the yield from assessees' estate as it included rubber sheets brought to the estate by 23 persons in the neighbourhood for drying them in the assessees' smoke house. It is contended that this fact was not properly verified by the Officers and the estimate made on the basis of this inflated figure for not only that particular year but for the other year also is erroneous and unrelated to the correct position.