Best judgment assessment of agricultural income sustained where no records were produced and estimated yield was supported by local evidence.

Best judgment assessment of agricultural income under Section 25(5) of the West Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944 was sustained where no return was filed for one year and no books or supporting materials were produced for the other. The computation on deemed agricultural receipt and estimated yield, based on local records and prevailing yield, was not displaced by bare denial from the assessee. Claims that a large portion of the land had been sold and that bargadar cultivation affected the computation failed because the relevant facts were not placed before the Assessing Officer. The assessment orders were upheld, and no error was found in the income computation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the best judgment assessments of agricultural income could be sustained on the basis of deemed receipt and estimated yield, whether the assessee could dispute the extent of land assessed without having placed the relevant facts before the Assessing Officer, and whether the plea based on bargadar cultivation required interference.

Analysis: In the absence of a return for one year and in the absence of books or supporting materials for the other, the Assessing Officer was entitled under Section 25(5) of the West Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944 to make a best judgment assessment. In such a case, the computation necessarily proceeds on the agricultural produce and income deemed to have been received after making the deductions permissible in law, and the estimate based on local records and prevailing yield could not be rejected on the bare assertion of the assessee. The plea that a large portion of the land had been sold was not available because that fact had not been brought before the Assessing Officer. The contention regarding bargadar possession also failed for want of material before the assessing authority, and the computation already allowed the maximum permissible deduction.

Conclusion: The assessment orders were upheld and no error was found in the computation of agricultural income.

---