1979 (6) TMI 4

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the paddy as also deductions and the tax payable as follows: " Assessed u/s. 25(5) for failure to submit return. Land : 25 acres of agrl. land as per past records has been accepted for the purpose of assessment in the absence of any return. In the absence of any return, the production of crops which are valued as per rule 4(2)(a) has been estimated on the basis of the prevailing local average. Computed thus : Aman 25 acres X 6*'50 qlts. acres X Rs. 80 per qlt. = Rs. 13,000 Straw 25 acres X 2 khns. acres X Rs. 60 per qlt. = Rs. 3,000 ---------- Less: 50% cost of cultivation = Rs. 16,000 Rs. 8,000 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... yable by 27-6-74." The petitioner challenged the assessment on three grounds. The first ground is that the officer made an error in computing the income on the basis of the paddy deemed to have been received by the assessee. According to him, from a reference to ss. 3,.4 and 7, it would appear that the assessee can be charged only in respect of the value of the agricultural produce actually received by him and there cannot be any basis for the quantum of paddy deemed to have been received or receivable by him. In other words, the receipt must be the actual receipt. Mr. Pal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on a decision of Dhirendra Nath Patra Das v. Agrl. ITO 1978] 112 ITR 233 (Cal), in which it was observed that it was not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... here is no rebuttal by any affidavit-in-reply. In view of this position it is not possible to accept the bare certificate of the Anchal Pradhan in respect thereof on which reliance has been placed by the assessee. I, accordingly, hold that there is no error in the computation of the agricultural income made by the Agrl. ITO. It is further stated that in respect of the second assessment the assessee had sold away a large portion of his property during the period so that he could not be assessed on 25 acres of land. This fact was not before the Assessing Officer and, therefore, there was no material established, for the Assessing Officer, to be taken into account that the assessee had not been in possession of such an area of land. Accordin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X