9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (9) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings for assessment of agricultural income-tax under the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948 (U. P. Act No. III of 1949) (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "). The respondent was an agriculturist in the district of Agra, and was assessed to agricultural income-tax for the year 1358, Fasli. The income that came up for assessment included income derived from direct agricultural operations car ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled an application for revision against this order of the assessing authority before the Board of Revision, Agricultural Income-tax, U.P., urging that the assessing authoritiy had erred in allowing a deduction of the sum of Rs. 8,210-8-0 for expenses of cultivation against the sum of Rs. 5,769-12-3 actually spent and claimed by the respondent in his return. The Revision Board, instead of deciding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he State, urged that in view of rule 13 framed by the U. P. Government in exercise of the rule-making power under the Act, the assessing authority was incompetent to allow as expenses any amount other than the amounts actually paid by the assessee on account of agricultural operations metioned in that rule ; and since the respondent himself claimed that he actually spent the sum of Rs. 5,769-12-3, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the expenses must be proved to be amounts of money actually paid for any specified operations. What this provision contemplates is that the assessing authority must determine the expenses incurred in raising the crop and on operations leading to its sale. Rule 13 framed by the U. P. Government can only be interpreted as laying down the principles according to which the assessing authority mus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... han the amount actually shown by the respondent. The assessing authority, in thus estimating the allowable expenditure at a figure higher than the amount claimed by the respondent, had full justification in the circumstance that he had estimated the produce also at a higher figure. The answer returned by the High Court was, therefore, perfectly correct. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
