Agricultural income computation allows estimated cultivation s beyond return figures where actual yield is found higher.

In computing agricultural income under section 6(2)(b) of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948, the assessing authority was not confined to the expense figures stated in the return. The provision required a computation of the expenses actually incurred in raising and marketing the crop and in maintaining or hiring implements and cattle, and Rule 13 only supplied ordinary principles for that determination. The authority could therefore estimate a higher cultivation expense where the facts showed that the actual yield was higher than the returned yield. The return statement was not binding, and the expense deduction could be increased on the material found.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in assessing agricultural income under section 6(2)(b) of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948, the assessing authority was bound by the expense figures shown in the return, or could allow a larger deduction towards cultivation expenses when it found the yield to be higher than the returned yield.

Analysis: Section 6(2)(b)(iv) required the assessing authority to compute the expenses actually incurred in raising and marketing the crop and in maintaining or hiring agricultural implements and cattle. The provision did not confine the deduction to amounts proved as actually paid for specified operations. Rule 13 only supplied ordinary principles for determining such expenses and could not fetter the statutory power to arrive at the correct figure. Once the assessing authority found that the produce itself was higher than what the assessee had shown, it was open to estimate that the corresponding cultivation expenses were also higher than the amount claimed in the return.

Conclusion: The statement in the return was not binding on the assessee, and the assessing authority could allow a larger amount by way of expenses on the facts found. The answer was in favour of the assessee.

---