TMI Blog1993 (12) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ptember 17, 1984. He stated a few reasons for the rejection of the returns. Amongst them, the following important aspects were stressed : (i) The crop register for cardamom maintained and produced was not written in the ordinary course of harvesting ; (ii) Though weekly statements of the yield of cardamom along with the statements of expenses were received from the estate by the head office, the weekly statements of yield of cardamom, except for the week ending October 22, 1982, were not produced for verification. The yield of cardamom accounted for was only 35 per cent. of the actual yield ; (iii) The value of 150 kgs. of coffee taken for own use was not accounted ; (iv) The yield of pepper accounted for was not based on any proper accounts ; and (v) The inspection report of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Vythiri, dated April 10, 1978, disclosed planted cardamom and also immature cardamom and coffee area. But no separate records were maintained for the expenses incurred for the upkeep and maintenance of the immature area. Inadmissible expenses were claimed. A pre-assessment notice was issued. The assessee filed its objections. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellate Assistant Commissioner found that it will be fair and reasonable to fix the production for the year. by adding an equal amount of yield conceded. The Revenue as well as the assessee filed appeals against the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in Income-tax Appeal No. 925 of 1984, dated January 24, 1987. In the appeal filed by the Revenue, the main grievance was against the quantum of yield of cardamom refixed by the first appellate authority. The Appellate Tribunal, for the various reasons stated in its order dated March 15, 1989, held that the estimate of yield of cardamom made by the assessing authority is justified and the direction of the first appellate authority in interfering with the estimate made was uncalled for. The yield of cardamom originally assessed by the assessing authority was restored. The appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed. In the appeal filed by the assessee, some modifications were made in respect of the claim regarding the expenses. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed in part. The assessee has come up in revision against that portion of the common order passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal whereby ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the motor car. On the merits, the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal on those two aspects is justified. We concur with the view of the Appellate Tribunal and hold that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in negativing the vehicle expenses and also in not allowing depreciation for the car. No material was placed before us to take a different view. In this view, the order of the Appellate Tribunal negativing the relief sought by the assessee is found to be justified in law. We hold so. The four different questions formulated in paragraph 7 (a), (b), (c) and (d)-centre round the quantum of estimate sustained by the Appellate Tribunal regarding cardamom. Those questions arose for consideration in the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Appellate Tribunal. The assessing authority found a weekly report for the week from October 18, 1982, to October 22, 1982, along with the accounts produced for verification. He also found that the entries in the crop register produced before him have nothing to do with the weekly statement that was found out. He held that there is no doubt that the weekly report detected at the time of verification of the accounts is the only weekly statemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of cardamom obtained by the assessee. The yield of cardamom is regularly detailed in kgs. Hence it is not possible to overrule the validity of the paper simply because the yield was not detailed in kgs. It is very important to note that individual days of the particular week, the quantity of green cardamom and the quantity of dry cardamom, etc., which are the substance of any weekly statement, are very much available in the piece of paper. It is common knowledge that the incriminating documents or papers will not be maintained as explicitly and clearly as in the case of regular accounts and records. Moreover, the weekly statements other than the seized one have not been produced before the assessing authority for his verification. Another particular feature worth mentioning, as rightly observed by the assessing authority, is the proportion between green and dry cardamom obtained. For the immediately preceding assessment year, i.e., 1982-83, the assessee had returned an yield of 1,879.20 kgs. For the assessment year 1981-82, the assessee had returned an yield of 1,010 kgs. When these figures are compared it is only reasonable to presume that the yield conceded by the assessee for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e matter came up before this Bench on August 10, 1993, we were informed by the Government Pleader that the piece of paper did not form part of the assessment records and so, counsel for the Revenue is not in a position to produce the same. We felt that the entire episode regarding the piece of paper seems to be a little obscure or vague. We adverted to the details as also how it has been dealt with by the assessing authority, the first appellate authority and the Appellate Tribunal, and opined that it is not clear from the order of the Tribunal as to who produced the piece of paper before the Tribunal. We also stated that since the said piece of paper was produced before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by the assessee's representative, it should have been with him and the natural inference is that it should have been produced before the Appellate Tribunal by the representative of the assessee. We gave an opportunity to the assessee as well as the Revenue to file statements or affidavits in that behalf. In pursuance of the said order, the matter again came up before us on August 17, 1993. Counsel for the assessee filed an affidavit of the chartered accountant who appeared befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ular crop register maintained by the assessee. Moreover, the history and background disclose that the return for the two previous years was much more than the present year and it is in these circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal sustained the yield of cardamom originally made by the assessing authority and reversed the decision of the first appellate authority on that aspect. We are satisfied, on a perusal of the detailed order of the Appellate Tribunal, that the Tribunal has given cogent reasons to reverse the decision of the first appellate authority regarding the yield of cardamom. Moreover, the Appellate Tribunal had the benefit of looking into the piece of paper or the slip and comparing it with the books of account and other documents and came to the conclusion that the piece of paper related to the yield of cardamom obtained by the assessee and so, the estimate of cardamom made by the assessing authority placing reliance on the piece of paper or the slip found from the accounts book is justified and proper. By the same token, the Appellate Tribunal took the view that the first appellate authority was not justified in discarding the piece of paper or slip and in holding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated March 15, 1989, does not merit interference in revisions. We dismiss both the revisions. There shall be no order as to costs. Before concluding, we would like to highlight one aspect of the matter which discloses a disturbing feature in many of the tax revision cases coming up before this court. We had occasion to notice in many cases that the first appellate authority or even the Appellate Tribunal is adverting to or taking into consideration documents or papers placed before them for the first time in the course of arguments. In many cases, it appears that no notice is given to the opposite party about the matter. A copy of the said document does not form part of the records of either the first appellate authority or the Appellate Tribunal. When the matter comes up before this court, we are left in the dark as to how the document was produced at all or looked into by the statutory authorities or the nature and contents of the documents. We would only stress that all materials which are relied on and which form the basis of assessment (except original account books or similar records) should be available in the assessment records. It may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
