9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Challenge to order passed by Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax - Estimation of yield from rubber for the year 1987-88 - Validity of inspection reports - Opportunity to contradict findings in inspection report - Right to move an application before the Assistant Commissioner - Revisional order passed by the Board of Revenue - Exercise of jurisdiction under section 34 Analysis: The case involves a writ appeal challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax under the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. The main issue pertains to the estimation of yield from rubber for the year 1987-88. The appellant argues that the sudden increase in yield is unreasonable, relying on an inspection report dated December 28, 1982. However, the court emphasizes the importance of the inspection report dated April 28, 1988, which is more relevant to the accounting year in question. The court highlights the evidentiary value of inspection reports prepared by authorized officers and dismisses the appellant's attempt to discredit the report based on convenience. Regarding the validity of inspection reports, the court notes that while the appellant challenges the accuracy of the report, the genuineness cannot be dismissed. The court points out that the appellant had the opportunity to challenge the report during appropriate proceedings but failed to do so. The court concludes that the appellant's conduct allowed the report to hold weight in the assessment process for the year in question. The court addresses the appellant's argument about the lack of opportunity to contradict the findings in the inspection report. It highlights the provision in the Act that allows for the issuance of a commission to ascertain and report yield and cultivation expenses, providing the appellant with a mechanism to challenge the report. Since the appellant did not utilize this right, the court upholds the assessment order and subsequent modifications made by the Board of Revenue. In reviewing the exercise of jurisdiction under section 34, the court finds that the Board of Revenue acted reasonably and properly. The court agrees with the lower court's observation that the findings of the authorities involved are well-supported and not perverse. Ultimately, the court dismisses the writ appeal, affirming the decisions made by the lower courts and upholding the revisional order passed by the Board of Revenue.
|
