LexCOMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX versus M.N.MONI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-4 -
COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
A
v.
M.N.MONI
MAY 18,2007
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] B
.~.
'j
Kera/a Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1952:
s.60-Reference to High Court-Jn a reference only a question of laws c
can be answered-Where determination of an issue depends upon appreciation
of evidence or material resulting in ascertainment of basic facts without
application of laws, the issue raises a mere question of fact-It is open to
High Court not to answer the reference if no question of law is involved-
On facts, Assessing Authority and Appellate Authority had recorded findings
of facts and High Court has not indicated any reason for upsetting those D
findings-Matter remitted to High Court for consideration afresh.
+
,~
The returns filed by the assessee under the Kerala Agricultural Income
Tax Act, 1952, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, did not reflect correct
and complete and he included the income of Coffee from 60.79 acres in the
taxable income. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the findings E
of the Assessing Officer. In the record appeals preferred by the assessee, the
Kerala Income Tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed the estimate of income from
the said 60.79 acres of land. On an application for reference in terms of
Section 60 of the Act, the Tribunal referred to the High Court the question
as to whether the findings of the Tribunal that income from 60. 79 acres of F
land was not included in the accounts of the assessee was supported by any
material or evidence. The High Court held that the order of the Tribunal was
not correct and decided the question in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved, the
Revenue filed the instant appeal.
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to the High Court, the G
Court
HELD: 1.1. In a reference there is no scope for interference with the
' -t'
factual findings, unless the findings are per se without reason or basis,
257
H
258
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007) 7 S.C.R.
A perverse and/or contrary to materials on record. Merely because different
view on facts may be available to be drawn, that cannot be a ground to interfere
with the findings of fact recorded by the authorities. In the instant case,
findings of facts were recorded by the Assessing Authority and the appellate
authority. The High Court has not even indicated as to why it considered the
B conclusions of the Assessing Authority and the Appellate Authority to be
unsustainable. (Para 12 and 15) (261-A-B; E-F]
1.2. In cases of reference, only a question of law can be answered. Where
the determination of an issue depends upon the appreciation of evidence or
materials resulting in ascertainment of basic facts without application of law,
C the issue raises a mere question of fact. An interference from certain facts
is also a question of fact A conclusion based on appreciation of facts does not
give rise to any question oflaw. If a finding of fact is arrived at by the Tribunal
after improperly rejecting evidence, a question of law arises. Where the
Tribunal acts on materials partly relevant and partly irrelevant, a question of
law arises because it is impossible to say to what extent the mind of the
D Tribunal was affected by the irrelevant material used by it in arriving at the
finding. A question of fact becomes a question of law if the finding is either
without any evidence or material. It is to be noted that even after the reference
is made by the Tribunal directly or on the basis of a direction given by the
High Court, it is open to the High Court not to answer the reference if no
E question of law is involved. [Para 13, 14 and 15) (261-C-F)
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2716 of2007.
From the Final Judgment and Order dated I 5. I 0.2004 of the High Court
Kerala at Ernaukulam in ITR No. 143 and 144of1999.
G. Prakash, Beena Prakash and Ramesh Babu M.R. for the Appellant
C.N. Sree Kumar for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. 1. Leave granted.
H
2. Challenge in this appeal is. to the order passed by a Division Bench
of the Kerala High Court answering the reference made to it under the Kerala
Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1952 {in short the 'Act') in favour of the
',-
COMMNR.OF AGRICULTURALINCOMETAXv. M.N. MONI [PASAYAT,J.]
259
-
respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "assessee").
A
3. Background facts in a nutshell arExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.