TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to answer the reference if no question of law is involved. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits, we set aside the order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration. - - - - - Dated:- 18-5-2007 - Judge(s) : ARIJIT PASAYAT., P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN., D. K. JAIN JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.-Leave granted. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court answering the reference made to it under the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (in short the" Act") in favour of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the" assessee"). The background facts in a nutshell are as follows: For the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the taxable income. Appeals were preferred by the assessee before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), who confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer on the issue relating to 60.79 acres of newly registered area and the income therefrom. However, the appellate authority directed that the cultivation expenses were to be allowed at Rs. 2,000 per acre. The assessee preferred second appeals before the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode (in short "the Tribunal"). The Tribunal found that the accounts produced by the assessee were only in respect of the 218 acres of land and the activities relating to 60.79 acres of land were not disclosed. Accordingly, the Tribunal confirmed the estimate of income f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, no interference is called for. We find that after making a brief reference to the controversy, the High Court disposed of the reference with the following observations: "The contention of the assessee was that so far as they are concerned they have returned the entire agricultural income from the property. Further, it was submitted that with regard to coffee, they cannot sell coffee to outsiders, but it can be sold through M/s. Pierce Leslie. In the above view of the fact, the contention of the assessee is that conclusion by the authorities is not correct. The Tribunal, after considering the case, came to the conclusion that the assessee had not shown the return from 60.79 acres. According to us, this view is not correct. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
