2000 INSC 1207
                                        SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                             Consolidation Coffee Ltd.

                                                           Vs.

                                                 State of Karnataka

                                             C.A.Nos.1169-73 of 1998

                                    (S. P. Bharucha and D. P. Mohapatra, JJ.)

                                                      14.11.2000

                                                       ORDER

1. We are of the view that the High Court was right and that, therefore, the orders under challenge
do not require any interference. Having regard to the materials on record, it is clear that the
Agricultural Income Tax Officer had to proceed to assess the income of the assessee to the best of
his judgment in terms of Rule (7) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income Tax Rules. In doing so he
adopted the method of apportioning the gross receipts from the assessee's agricultural operations and
non-agricultural operations. It cannot be said that this was a perverse method to apply. It might be
that, had the assessee furnished all the relevant particulars and so urged, the apportionment could
have been on the basis of the proportion between the net income from these sources; but that is no
reason for us to interfere in the present cases. The High Court has relied upon the judgment of the
Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Manjushree Plantation Ltd., (130 ITR 908)
to say, "(T)herefore, any expenditure that would be incurred should be definitely relatable to the
agricultural activity or to another activity which is not agricultural. When such bifurcation is not
permissible, some reasonable test will have to be adopted as indicated in Manjushree's case," and
that this appears to be correct. 1980 Tax LR 567

2. In the circumstances, these civil appeals are dismissed.
3. No order as to costs.
         Appeals dismissed.