HANEEFA M S Vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING felt aggrieved by the best judgment assessment under section 17(4) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, the petitioner filed a revision before the second respondent. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and after going through the records, the revisional authority confirmed the order of the assessing authority holding that the petitioner has derived an income of Rs. 1,05,445 during the assessment year 1987-88 and has incurred expenses of Rs. 61,845 and after deducting the expenses the net agricultural income of the petitioner being Rs. 43,600 and the tax payable is Rs. 14,730. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come up to this court for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the second respondent in R. B. No. 66 of 1988; dated March 11, 1989. In the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, it is stated that during the assessment year 1987-88, the petitioner has not realised any income, but incurred loss, that while arriving at the total income of the petitioner, the first respondent has taken into account the cost of 25 lorry loads of fuel trees stored in the estate, that the first respondent has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has realised an income of Rs. 62,500 for 25 lorry loads of fuel trees and that the first respondent cannot take into consideration the alleged fuel trees stored in the estate for the purpose of computing agricultural income-tax. It is further stated in the affidavit that apart from the fact that the sale proceeds of fuel timber cannot be called agricultural income, as the trees were forest trees of spontaneous growth, the fuel trees which are stored could not be even sold, in view of certain proceedings pending before the forest authorities and that if the amount of Rs. 62,500 is excluded, there is no taxable income and that, therefore, the impugned order of the second respondent confirming the order of the first respondent is liable to be set aside on the short ground that it is not sustainable in law.

(2.) WITH regard to the income from cashew trees, it is pointed out in the affidavit that the first respondent has taken into account that there are only 3,200 yielding cashew trees in the estate and has concluded that the petitioner has realised an income of Rs. 8,000 during the assessment year 1987-88 on the said head and that the entire estate has been abandoned and the cashew trees are not yielding any income due to the fact that they were abandoned long back and as such the first respondent erred in arriving at an income of Rs. 8,000 from cashew trees. As regards silk cotton, it is stated in the affidavit that the first respondent has taken into account 1,200 trees and the income derived therefrom as Rs. 18,000 and that though there are a few silk cotton trees in the estate, they are well spread all over the estate and it is practically not possible to realise any income therefrom. So far as arecanut trees are concerned, it is pointed out in the affidavit that the first respondent has not taken into consideration any income, and that factually there are no arecanut trees in the estate. If is further alleged in the affidavit that before proceeding to take action under section 17(4) of the Act, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer should have made a personal local inspection of the estate to find out the actual state of affairs and that in the absence of local inspection of the estate, the first respondent erred in holding that there was income and has passed the impugned order of assessment which was also confirmed by the revisional authority. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the second respondent has not considered the question raised before it and has accordingly rejected the contention that the second respondent has not seriously adverted to these aspects at all in his impugned order while rejecting the revision petition; that the estate is not capable of fetching any income and it has got timber value only as the estate has a large number of spontaneously growing timber trees, that even in the previous assessment years, when the petitioner was assessed to income-tax and that even though the petitioner has brought to the notice of the respondent, the above facts, they were not considered by the revisional authority.