Case: Pullangode Rubber and Produce Company Limited Vs. State of Kerala and Another

1. This appeal by special leave arises from a decision of the Kerala High Court refusing to direct the Tribunal to submit the two questions set out by the assessee in its application under section 60(2) of the Kerala Agriculturalx Act, 1950 (22 of 1950). The questions that the assessee wanted the Tribunal to refer to the High Court and which the Tribunal refused to refer are "(1) Whether the fact that the applicant apportioned the sum of Rs. 79, 680 out of the general revenue expenses of its estate towards the immature area and capitalised the same for purposes of its accounts precluded the appellant from claiming the same as revenue expenses for the purpose of agriculturalx assessment ?      (2) Whether the Tribunal ought not to have considered the nature of the expenses amounting to Rs. 79, 680 for the purpose of determining whether it is allowable expenditure or not irrespective of the way it was dealt with by the applicant for the purpose of its accounts ?"

Court's reasoning:
From the order of the Tribunal it is not clear that such an opportunity was afforded to the assessee. The Tribunal appears to have been unduly influenced by its decision relating to the year immediately previous to the year of assessment and, consequently, it appears that it ignored the assessees assertion that their account books do not correctly show the facts. If the Tribunal had examined the plea of the assessee that their account books do not correctly disclose the real facts and thereafter rejected that contention, then the finding of the Tribunal would have been a finding of fact and this court would not have interfered with such a findingDr. Seyid Muhammed urged that the decision of the High Court relating to the assessment of the assessee in the earlier year is wrong. An uncertified copy of that order was produced before us. Therein, the High Court purported to follow an earlier decision of that court. That decision was also placed before us. We have not gone into the question whether the decision of the High Court was right or wrong. The only question that we have to consider is whether, from the order of the Tribunal, we can come to the conclusion that the assessee was given a proper opportunity to establish its pleaabout that we are not satisfiedHence, we are of the opinion that the questions set out in the application of the assessee do arise for consideration and, therefore, the High Court should have directed the Tribunal to refer those questions to the High Court for its opinion