9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (6) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 6.00 acres 4th group plants 15 years' old-2.00 acres For the pre-assessment notice, the assessee filed detailed objections which is available at page 25 of the assessment files. The assessee submitted that the yield in that year was reduced to 50 per cent. in view of some disease (azhukal) and the crop was poor. She also specifically objected to the estimate made on plants which were 10 years' old and 13 years' old. It is common ground that no inspection of the assessee's properties was conducted by the officer. It seems that the officer conducted enquiries in the locality and also inspected some other estate in the locality. Based thereon, he gave some deduction in the yield as in similar cases. Aggrieved by the assessment, the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its P-1 and P-2 orders on the ground that the estimate was made on the basis of previous records and assessments and a detailed enquiry was conducted at the time of inspection of an estate of the same group in the same locality. It is also the contention of the respondents that Exhibit P-3 guidelines are not conclusive and so the estimate made is fair and proper, I see considerable force in the contentions of the petitioner. It is true that Exhibit P-3 is only a guideline issued by the Board of Revenue. It is specifically stated therein that the yield will be reduced considerably from 10th year onwards. It is significant that the guidelines state that in the 12th year there will be replanting. The guidelines are not conclusive. But they are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stimate in the circumstances is arbitrary. It cannot be sustained. I quash Exhibit P-2 order passed in revision by the 2nd respondent. Respondent No. 2 is directed to restore A.I.T.R.P. No. 1257 of 1981 to his file and dispose of the revision in accordance with law. I make it clear that respondent No. 2 is not fettered by the specifications or fixation of yield fixed in Exhibit P-3 guidelines. If the respondents want to deviate from the guidelines contained in Exhibit P-3 it is for them to further allege and/or substantiate proper material therefor. If the petitioner has complied with the order passed by this court in C.M.P. No. 11326 of 1982 dated June 9, 1982, there will be no further collection of tax till the revision is disposed of b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
