High Court Of Kerala
M.N. Moni, Executor For E.K. Vijayan & Ors. vs. Commissioner Of Agricultural Income Tax
Asst. Years 1982-83, 1983-84
S. Sankarasubban & A.K. Basheer, JJ.
IT Ref. Nos. 143 & 144 of 1998
15th October, 2004
Counsel Appeared : Antony Dominic & A.K. Jayasankar Nambiar, for the Assessee : Georgekutty Mathew, for the Revenue
S. Sankarasubban, J. :
These references arise under the Kerala Agricultural IT Act. The question referred in these cases is as follows : “Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, is the finding of the Tribunal that income from 60.79 acres of unregistered coffee area is not included in the accounts of the assessee supported by any material or evidence?” The facts of the case are as follows : The assessee owns an estate by name “Woodland Estate” in Kalpetta. The assessee derived agricultural income from coffee, pepper, arecanut, coconut, cardamom and cocoa. The assessment years are 1982-83 and 1983-84. The assessee, returned an income of Rs. 1,22,520. The AO rejected the account of the assessee and enhanced the income with regard to the years 1982-83 and 1983-84. Aggrieved by the orders, the assessee filed appeals before the Dy. CIT(A). The appeals were allowed by a common order. The assessee not being satisfied with the relief granted by the first appellate authority, approached the Tribunal in second appeal. The Revenue was also dissatisfied with the orders of the Dy. CIT(A) with regard to certain points and they also filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by a common order disposed of the appeals. One of the main items which was in dispute and which was decided by the Tribunal is the addition of Rs. 3,95,135 for 1982-83 and Rs. 4,55,925 for 1983-84 relating to 60.79 acres of coffee in Woodland Estate, Kalpetta, for which no coffee registration was obtained.
The contention of the assessee was that so far as they are concerned, they have returned the entire agricultural income from the property. Further, it was submitted that with regard to coffee, they cannot sell coffee to outsiders, but it can be sold through M/s Pierce Leslie. In the above view of the fact, the contention of the assessee is that the conclusion by the authorities is not correct. The Tribunal, after considering the case came to the conclusion that the assessee had not shown the return from 60.79 acres. According to us, this view is not correct. Insofar as the coffee can be sold only through M/s Pierce Leslie, there is no basis for the Department to state that the entire income has not been returned. In the above view of the matter, we hold that the orders passed by the Tribunal are not correct and hence, the question is decided in favour of the assessee. The income-tax reference are disposed of.
[Citation : 291 ITR 385]