Skip to content


Nilgiri Plantations Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revision Petition No. 1727 of 1980
Judge
Reported in[1986]160ITR200(KAR); [1986]160ITR200(Karn)
ActsKarnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 - Sections 5(1)
AppellantNilgiri Plantations Ltd.
RespondentState of Karnataka
Appellant AdvocateG. Sarangan, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS. Rajendra Babu, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....of the first plaintiff is not lawful. the trial court has not considered the evidence on record and the question of law involved in the case. the judgment and decree of trial court is liable to be set aside. - 4. the commissioner has also stated that the assessee has failed to establish that the expert advice sought from the consultants in return for the payment of rs. it is, therefore, unnecessary to investigate this matter also when it is clearly stated that the sum of rs......too general and without regard to the assessment order. it is not as if the assessing officer has allowed the general charges as claimed by the assessee. he has looked into the particulars of the expenditure claimed and allowed only such of those expenses that are evidenced by vouchers. there is, therefore, no reason to consider that matter. 7. equally, is the observation of the commissioner in regard to the third item. the commissioner has stated that although the assessee would be entitled to get the deduction of auditor's fee paid for getting the accounts investigated, preparation of profit and loss account and balancesheet, the assessee has not established that he has paid the auditor's fee only for such purposes. it is too much to presume that the auditor has been paid for any.....
Judgment:

K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Karnataka, Bangalore, under section 35 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957.

2. The Commissioner by the said order has found fault with the assessment order in relation to the following three deductions allowed (1) consultant's fee Rs. 24,000, (2) general charges Rs. 7,418.44 and (3) auditor's fee Rs. 1,800.

3. So far as the first item is concerned, the Commissioner was of the opinion that consultancy agreement by itself is not decisive to claim such exemption and the particulars of the advice received by the assessee from the consultants are also necessary and, in the absence of any such particulars, it is not possible to judge whether or not it is allowable under section 5(1)(k) of the Act. We entirely agree with this reasoning that in the absence of the nature of the advice given by the consultants, it is not possible to find out whether the payment made in respect of such advice could fall within section 5(1)(k) of the Act.

4. The Commissioner has also stated that the assessee has failed to establish that the expert advice sought from the consultants in return for the payment of Rs. 24,000 was meant for deriving agricultural income wholly and exclusively. He has also observed that there are no particulars of the advice received from the consultants. Of course, it is for the assessee to

5. show that the payment made to the consultants was for the purpose of deriving agricultural income. But, to infer that the fee paid for obtaining advice in respect of a coffee estate would always be in the nature of capital expenditure may not be warranted. That part of the reasoning of the Commissioner cannot, therefore, be justified in the absence of relevant evidence.

6. Turning now to the second item relating to general charges, it may be stated that the assessee claimed in all Rs. 12,864.03. Out of that, a sum of Rs. 5,246.09 was disallowed by the assessing officer and the remaining amount of Rs. 7,418.44 was only allowed. The Commissioner, on this aspect of the matter, has observed that the evidence by way of vouchers, etc., has not been furnished to establish the correctness of the various items of expenditure claimed under the head 'general charges' and the assessee is entitled only to such of the items of expenditure as are directly associated with the process of deriving agricultural income. The observations of the Commissioner are too general and without regard to the assessment order. It is not as if the assessing officer has allowed the general charges as claimed by the assessee. He has looked into the particulars of the expenditure claimed and allowed only such of those expenses that are evidenced by vouchers. There is, therefore, no reason to consider that matter.

7. Equally, is the observation of the Commissioner in regard to the third item. The Commissioner has stated that although the assessee would be entitled to get the deduction of auditor's fee paid for getting the accounts investigated, preparation of profit and loss account and balancesheet, the assessee has not established that he has paid the auditor's fee only for such purposes. It is too much to presume that the auditor has been paid for any other work. The auditor has no other work in a company. It is, therefore, unnecessary to investigate this matter also when it is clearly stated that the sum of Rs. 1,800 was paid as auditor's fee.

8. In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part. The order of the Commissioner so far as it relates to the consultancy fee, subject to the observations indicated above, is kept undisturbed. This aspect of the matter will now be considered by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer. The order in so far it relates to the other two items is set aside.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //