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 TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 OTC.No. 6 of 2005() ------------------- ITA.48/2003 of AGRL.I.T.A.T.,ADDL.BENCH,KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT: -------------------------------------- P. REGHUVEERAN, CHANDRA ESTATE, P.O. MANIANCODE, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P. PRADEEP THIS OTHER TAX CASES HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2008, ALONG WITH 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. 6 & 9 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. These Revision Cases are filed under Section 78 of the AIT Act challenging the order of the Agrl. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91. Petitioner, though a regular assessee for agrl. income tax, did not file any return or produce books of accounts for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91. The assessing officer therefore estimated the income based on the income determined for the preceding years. The first appellate authority modified the assessments by refixing the income at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per acre for income from coffee instead of Rs. 8,000/- fixed by the assessing officer. No dispute was raised for the income estimated from pepper. On second appeal, the Tribunal confirmed the estimation of income by the appellate authority. 2. Counsel for the petitioner contended that even though petitioner has not filed returns or produced books of accounts, income 2 should be determined based on payments received from Coffee Board certified by pool agents. We find that the Tribunal has considered the same matter and held that there is no need to consider gross income received and then allow the cultivation expenses because what was fixed by the first appellate authority was net agricultural income which obviously provides for cultivation expenses. Since first appellate authority fixed net income as against gross income, Tribunal declined to grant cultivation expenses. We do not find any question of law arising from the order of Tribunal. We accordingly dismiss the Revision Cases. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. kk 3