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 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 OTC.No. 16 of 2005() -------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER IN AITA.56/2002 of AGRICULATURAL INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDL.BENCH, KOZHIKODE) .................... : PETITIONERS ---------------------------- KERALA JESUIT SOCIETY, MALAPARAMBA, CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY AND TREASURER. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. AGRL.INCOMETAX AND SALES TAX OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. 2. APPELLATE ASST.COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SHRI.K.P.PRADEEP, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS OTHER TAX CASES HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/01/2008, ALONG WITH OTC 17/2005, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ------------------------- O.T.C.Nos. 16 & 17 of 2005 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 24th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 2. Petitioner is challenging the order of the Tribunal sustaining assessment of value of 678.50 Kg. of pepper as agricultural income and levy of tax and penalty thereon on the ground that petitioner is following cash system accounting. We have gone through the order of the Tribunal and find that petitioner has not accounted closing stock of pepper though plucking charges are accounted and petitioner concedes that 678.50 Kg. of pepper was collected as yield. Obviously, petitioner has not maintained proper books of accounts. Since closing stock was not shown petitioner cannot show opening stock for the next year to prove next year's sale of the crope of the previous year. In the circumstances, the presumption of the officer that the crop was sold in the previous year relevant to the assessment year is justified and the Tribunal rightly confirmed it. We, therefore, do not find any ground to interfere with the assessment confirmed by the Tribunal. O.T.C.Nos.16 & 17/2005 -2- However, having regard to the nature of activities of the petitioner and since the details are collected from petitioner's own accounts pertaining to plucking charges, we feel, reduction of penalty is called for. We, accordingly, reduce the penalty to Rs.35,000/- as against Rs.70,000/- confirmed by the Tribunal. Consequently revision filed against assessment stands dismissed and the revision filed against the penalty order is allowed to the above extent. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg