Find a Lawyer

I. T. C. No. 42 of 1976, heard on 21st October, 1985.

----S. 4(2)(A)‑Additions‑Agricultural income‑Addition in assessee's income by Department based on incorrect report of Mukhtiarkar which was not for relevant year also‑Reliance by Appellate Tribunal on its earlier order in assessee's case in respect of previous year, on issue involved, held, was justified in circumstances -Addition made by Department was not called for.

---S. 66(2)‑Reference‑Decision of Appellate Tribunal essentially a decision arrived after appreciating facts of case and could not be called perverse or arbitrary in any sense‑High Court declined interference.

‑‑ S. 66(2)‑Reference‑Question involved being hardly a question of law and Department remained unable to show any defect in reasoning of Tribunal‑High Court answered reference in affirmative.

Shaikh Haider for Applicant.

Iqbal Naeema Pasha for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 21st October, 1985.

.‑Following question has been referred to us by applicant under section 66(2) of the Income‑tax Act :‑

"Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned income‑tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in accepting assessee's estimates of his agricultural income despite the fact that the assessee admittedly ailed to discharge his onus "

The assessee is an individual, who had claimed income from a farm run in partnership with his wife for the year 1971‑72. The income that was claimed was 20,000 as 1/4th share of the assessee out of the total income of Rs. 80.000. The Income‑tax Officer did not allow the said claim on the basis of Mukhtiarkar's report that the total income of the farm did not exceed Rs. 14,264. Treating the balance of total income from the farm as Rs. 65,736 as non‑agricultural income, 3/4th share in the hand of assessee was considered as unexplained accretion. Only 1/4th income was considered to be in the hands of the assessee's wife.

The assessee appealed to the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal took the view that the report of the Mtakhtiarkar, apart from being incorrect, does not relate to the relevant year. The Tribunal relied upon its earlier order in respect of previous year on the said issue and held that since the agricultural farm comprised of about a thousand acres of land and is run in partnership, where the assessee's share is only 1/4th therefore, the question of making any additions under section 4(2‑A) does not arise.

The decision of the appellate Tribunal is essentially a decision arrived at after appreciating the facts of the case and it is not a decision which could be called perverse or arbitrary in any sense. Moreover the decision of the Appellate Tribunal hardly involves any question of law. The counsel for the Department has not been able to show us any defect in the reasoning of the Tribunal and we, therefore, answer the question in affirmative.

M. B. A. Reference answered in affirmative.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.