VENKULAM RUBBERS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 78 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991, a second revision.

(2.) FOR the assessment year 1988-89, for which the previous year ended on June 30, 1987, the petitioner as an assessee filed his return showing a net agricultural income of Rs. 15,000. It appears that during this accounting year the estate was given for slaughter tapping to two persons, P.J. George and Antony George. The assessing authority did not accept the return and proposed to complete the assessment by estimating the yield and income.

(3.) THE revision before the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Trivandrum, under Section 77 of the Act was contested by the petitioner-assessee only with regard to the ground that the estate had been under a slaughter tapping agreement with Syed Alavi and George from April, 1985, onwards and by reason thereof the assessment smacked of arbitrary character. In support thereof reliance is placed on the finding of the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax in R. P. No. 50/ 88/B1/2690 of 1988, dated August 7, 1988, to the effect that Mr. Syed Alavi and Mr. George had not taken the slaughter tapping of Mukattumala A, B and C estates and further that the assessee-company had entered into an agreement with P.J. George and Antony for slaughter tapping with effect from April 1, 1986. On the basis of the above situation, it was contended that the rubber plantation of 1954 was cut and removed in 1988 for replantation which would show that as a consequence it would never yield 1,100 kgs. per block and nobody will remove such high yielding trees when the price of rubber is rising high every day. THE contention came up for examination and in the process the learned Commissioner has observed that there is no evidence produced by the assessee to substantiate the contention. It is observed that Shri Alavi was present at the time of inspection and in R. P. No. 50 of 1988, dated August 7, 1988, the Deputy Commissioner cancelled the assessment on the ground that the Department had not proved the genuineness of the contract between the estate and Syed Alavi, a position against Mr. Syed Alavi. It is observed in the process that nowhere during the assessment stage for the current year or earlier years the fact of inspection and the result thereof was disputed. THE learned Commissioner has relied upon the contents of the reply on behalf of the assessee to the pre-assessment for the year 1986-87 to the effect that necessary documents were available with the slaughter party at the time of inspection. Additionally, it is also observed as a fact found on inspection that 83 tappers were engaged in a day. On the basis of the material on record, the learned Commissioner observed that there is enough material on record to reject the pleading of the slaughter tapping agreement.