Reassessment against a deceased assessee: procedural defect mandates fresh reassessment; nonresponsive petitioner may be treated as legal representati...
Exemption under section 54B requires proof of actual agricultural use of the land during the prescribed period; mere classification in revenue records is insufficient. The Tribunal found that revised 7/12 extracts could only raise a presumption and were not conclusive without corroborative evidence such as produce sale bills, seed or fertiliser purchase records, labour records, or other material showing active cultivation. As no such evidence was produced, the essential statutory condition remained unproved and the denial of exemption was upheld, with the addition sustained. The Tribunal also distinguished the cited contrary precedent on facts and relied on authority holding that revenue entries alone do not establish agricultural use.
Exemption under section 54B requires proof of actual agricultural use of the land during the prescribed period; mere classification in revenue records is insufficient. The Tribunal found that revised 7/12 extracts could only raise a presumption and were not conclusive without corroborative evidence such as produce sale bills, seed or fertiliser purchase records, labour records, or other material showing active cultivation. As no such evidence was produced, the essential statutory condition remained unproved and the denial of exemption was upheld, with the addition sustained. The Tribunal also distinguished the cited contrary precedent on facts and relied on authority holding that revenue entries alone do not establish agricultural use.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.