9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (4) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he sewage channel for the assessment year 1977-78 and in respect of V. Pattu channel for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80. The challenge to the disallowance of retrenchment compensation to workers for the assessment year 1976-77 has also not been pressed before us. The findings of the authorities with regard to the apportionment of the expenditure have been questioned before us only in respect of the pay and allowances of the staff employed as estate guards in the cashew tope, the pay and allowances of the agricultural farm supervisory staff and the wages of the labourers. We are, therefore, relieved of the necessity of dealing with any other point raised in the grounds of revision before us, except the three points mentioned hereinabove. Before considering the submissions raised and the validity of the order of the Tribunal, a brief reference to the salient facts is desirable. The petitioner, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., is a Government of India undertaking. It acquired lands for the purpose of extracting lignite and for establishing industrial units like thermal power station, a fertilizer factory, B C plant and the township. Somewhere in 1964, the petitioner dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Cuddalore, on the ground of unreasonableness. The expenditure was, however, restricted and allowed on proportionate basis as 1/3, 1/2 and 2/3, etc., for the different years under various heads. On appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the proportion of expenditure was revised and some more relief was granted to the assessee, though not to the extent claimed by it. The claim in respect of the expenditure, allegedly incurred, wholly and exclusively for deriving agricultural income, was apportioned by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In the meantime, assessments for the subsequent years were also made by the assessing authority on the same basis. The challenge before the first appellate authority did not yield the result desired by the assessee as regards the expenditure, Aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeals before the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 32 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act. The appeals were heard together and, by a common order dated January 22, 1981, the same were disposed of, against which the present revisions have been filed. T. C. No. 1586 of 1981 relates t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the labourers were also incurred exclusively for the agricultural activity of the petitioner and the authorities could not have apportioned the expenditure and the entire expenditure should have been allowed as a deduction. The case of the Revenue, on the other hand, is that the expenditure on pay and allowances of the staff and security personnel was not only not necessary and superfluous but that the assessee failed to establish that the expenditure was incurred for the purpose of deriving agricultural income or that the staff, including the security staff, were exclusively employed for the purpose of agricultural activity of the assessee and it was asserted that the expenditure was not relatable to the agricultural activity alone and the authorities had rightly apportioned the expenditure and limited the relief. That some expenditure was incurred by the petitioner for the agricultural activity has not been doubted by any of the statutory authorities and has not been questioned by the Revenue before us either. It is only the apportionment between the agricultural activity and the non-agricultural activity of the petitioner which has given rise to the filing of these cases. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d his best and has, perhaps, been liberal in having allowed 1/3rd of the expenditure on a reasonable assumption that it would perhaps be fair to quantify the cost of the services involved at 1/3rd. As a matter of fact, it is ironical that an august body of public sector undertaking should be helpless to show that the expenditure incurred was exclusively for the earning of the agricultural income. The points urged by counsel were of general nature such as (1) that, in the nature of things and in the industrial atmosphere set up of Neyveli Lignite Corporation, the agricultural labourers or other staff could not have been used for other purposes and (2) that in the trade union atmosphere, no employee would have allowed himself to do any other work. This argument of counsel does appear to be very plausible at first blush but, if it is scrutinised closely, it will be apparent that it is fallacious and cannot be accepted. Far from discharging the onus that lies on the assessee to prove that the expenditure was solely referable to the earning of the agricultural income, these points are at once seen to be categorical assertions and hypothetical statements. As a matter of fact, I am inclin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence or proof led by the assessee, no fault can be found with the apportionment of the expenditure by the statutory authorities. Whether the expenditure, deduction whereof is claimed by the assessee, is attributable to agriculture and could have been actually incurred was a matter which required verification by the statutory authorities. The onus was on the assessee to produce material by way of evidence in support of its plea and since the assessee failed to discharge that onus, this court, in exercise of its revisional powers, would not interfere with the findings recorded by the authorities as regards the apportionment of the expenditure claimed which, in the estimation of the authorities, could alone be relatable to the agricultural activity of the assessee. We are not impressed with the submission of learned counsel for the Revenue either that since the cashew tope had been leased out, there was no need to keep any watch and engage any estate guards. The statutory authorities found, on the basis of whatever material was available before them, that the expenditure was incurred partly for the agricultural activity and we see no reason to interfere with that finding on a hypothet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
