IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929 OTC.No. 1 of 2004() ------------------- AITA.114/1995 of AGRL.I.T. APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDL.BENCH,KOZHIKODE .................... : REVISION PETITIONER ------------------------------------ CLARAMMA VARGHESE, MANGALAPPALLY, S.H.MOUNT, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI K.P. PRADEEP THIS OTHER TAX CASES HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/01/2008, ALONG WITH OTC NO. 9 OF 2004 OTC NO. 6 OF 2004 OTC NO. 8 OF 2004 OTC NO. 12 OF 2004 OTC NO. 9 OF 2005 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N. Ramachandran Nair & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.T.C.NOS.1, 6, 8, 9, 12 & 14 OF 2004 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the revision petitioner in O.T.C. Nos.6/2004 and 12/2004 is no more and his legal heirs have to be impleaded. However, the other connected cases are filed by the wife and son respectively of the revision petitioner in the above two cases. Since the same counsel is appearing and at his request, we implead Smt. Claramma Varghese, Mangalappally, S.H. Mount, Kottayam as revision petitioner in the place of the deceased revision petitioner in O.T.C. Nos.6/2004 and 12/2004. 2. We heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Govt. Pleader. The dispute raised in all the cases is with regard to the estimation of yield and income from rubber plantations. Though the first appellate authority reduced the estimation of yield and income made by the assessing officer, the Tribunal reversed the same and restored the assessment. Learned counsel contended that the first appellate authority's order is more appropriate and tenable, because he has relied on the subsequent inspection OTC 1/2004 etc. -2- report and estimated yield and turnover on a rational basis. However, the Tribunal has reversed the first appellate authority's order and upheld the estimation made by the assessing authority. We do not find any question of law arising in this matter, because the estimation of yield and income therefrom are only pure questions of law. Moreover, the inspection report and other details such as number of trees were taken into consideration as the basis for estimation of yield and income by the Tribunal. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order of the Tribunal is not based on any materials. 3. In the above circumstances and since the questions decided are only pure questions of fact, we decline to interfere in the matter. All the Other Tax Cases are accordingly dismissed. (C.N. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ OTC 1/2004 etc. -3- C.N. Ramachandran Nair & & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . No. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 10th January, 2008. OTC 1/2004 etc. -4-