Dr. A.S Anand, C.J:— For the sake of convenience, all these nine tax cases, which involve common points and have been filed by the same assessee, i.e, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., relating to assessment years 1971-72 to 1979-80, are being disposed of together.

2. Though the dispute that was raised before the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and in the grounds of revision revolves round the apportionment of expenditure between non-agricultural activity and agricultural activity of the assessee with regard to cashew tope, agricultural farm (supervisory staff), direct wages labourers and ex-gratia bonus, retrenchment compensation to workers, sewage channel and V. Pattu Channel relatable to different assessment years, Mr. U.N.R Rao, learned counsel appearing for the assessee-petitioner in all these cases, has given up the challenge to the disallowed expenditure relating to the sewage channel for the assessment year 1977-78 and in respect of V. Pattu channel for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80.

3. The challenge to the disallowance of retrenchment compensation to workers for the assessment year 1976-77 has also not been pressed before us. The findings of the authorities with regard to the apportionment of the expenditure have been questioned before us only in respect of the pay and allowances of the staff employed as estate guards in the cashew tope, the pay and allowances of the agricultural farm supervisory staff and the wages of the labourers. We are, therefore, relieved of the necessity of dealing with any other point raised in the grounds of revision before us, except the three points mentioned hereinabove. Before considering the submissions raised and the validity of the order of the Tribunal, a brief reference to the salient facts is desirable.

4. The petitioner, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., is a Government of India undertaking. It acquired lands for the purpose of extracting lignite and for establishing industrial units like thermal power station, a fertilizer factory, B & C plant and the township. Somewhere in 1964, the petitioner decided to run a demonstration farm in the vacant lands, which allegedly were not required for the industrial project, so as to make use of the existing cultivable lands and the water which was pumped from the mining operations. According to the petitioner, to undertake this activity which was agricultural in nature, it employed supervisory staff, viz., agronomists, agricultural supervisors and field assistants besides labour and other staff and estate guards for the security of the cashew tope. According to the petitioner, nearly 400 to 500 agricultural farm workers were employed on casual basis and keeping in view the extent of the land, which was about 500 to 600 acres, the estate guards, the labour and the supervisory staff as employed was necessary. Since the petitioner was deriving agricultural income from this activity, in the agricultural income-tax returns filed, it claimed certain expenditure, including (i) the pay and allowances of the supervisory staff; (ii) direct wages paid to agricultural farm workers and (iii) the salaries, etc., of the estate guards engaged for cashew tope. It appears that the returns filed by the assessee till about 1968-69 disclosed petty loss only. These returns, including the expenditure claimed, had been accepted by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer. In December, 1972, the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Madras, on his own motion, revised the orders of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1970-71 and directed the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Cuddalore, to re-examine the claim for expenditure during the concerned assessment years. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Cuddalore, made reassessment for the three years in question and also made the original assessment for the year 1971-72. In the assessment thus made, the assessee's claim to have the benefit of setting off of the previous carried forward loss was rejected. The petitioner, thereupon, filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Vellore, and thereafter, to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the orders of assessment for the years 1968-69 to 1971-72 and directed fresh assessment in the light of the observations made by the Tribunal. In the reassessment proceedings, the expenditure as claimed by the Corporation as regards pay and salary of staff, etc., was disallowed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Cuddalore, on the ground of unreasonableness. The expenditure was, however, restricted and allowed on proportionate basis as ⅓, ½ and ⅔, etc., for the different years under various heads. On appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the proportion of expenditure was revised and some more relief was granted to the assessee, though not to the extent claimed by it. The claim in respect of the expenditure, allegedly incurred, wholly and exclusively for deriving agricultural income, was apportioned by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In the meantime, assessments for the subsequent years were also made by the assessing authority on the same basis. The challenge before the first appellate authority did not yield the result desired by the assessee as regards the expenditure. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeals before the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 32 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act. The appeals were heard together and, by a common order dated January 22, 1981, the same were disposed of, against which the present revisions have been filed.

5. T.C No. 1586 of 1981 relates to the assessment year 1971-72 and the grievance is as regards the disallowance to the extent of ⅔rds of the claimed expenditure in respect of salaries, etc., of the estate guards for the cashew tope. T.C No. 1583 of 1981 pertains to the assessment year 1972-73 and the grievance concerns the disallowance of the expenditure to the extent of ⅔rds in respect of salaries, etc., of the estate guards for the cashew tope, ¼th of the salaries of the supervisory staff and ⅓rd relating to the direct wages paid to the labourers. T.C No. 1582 of 1981 relates to the assessment year 1973-74 where, once again, the disallowance is to the extent of ⅔rds in respect of the expenditure relating to estate guards for the cashew tope, ¼th relating to the agricultural farm supervisory staff and ⅓rd as regards the direct wages of the labourers. T.C No. 1574 of 1981 relates to the assessment year 1974-75 and the grievance is identical to the one projected in T.C No. 1582 of 1981. T.C No. 1587 of 1981 is relatable to the assessment year 1975-76. The disallowance in respect of the salary of the estate guards of the cashew topes was maintained at ⅔ rds; so also was the disallowance in respect of the agricultural farm supervisory staff at ¼th, but the direct wages for the labourers were disallowed to the extent of ½. For the assessment year 1976-77, T.C No. 1593 of 1981 has been filed and the grievance relates to the disallowance of ⅔rds in respect of salary, etc., of the estate guards for the cashew tope and ½ in respect of the direct wages of the labourers. T.C Nos. 1610 of 1981, 1588 of 1981 and 1575 of 1981 are relatable to the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80 and the only grievance which has been projected before us relates to the disallowance to the extent of ⅜ths of the claimed expenditure in respect of each of the assessment years for the wages of the estate guards for the cashew tope. The other grievances projected in the three cases, as already noticed, were given up by learned counsel.

6. Mr. U.N.R Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the expenditure claimed by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as also before the Tribunal in respect of salary, etc., of the estate guards was essential and unavoidable to protect the estate and the trees and that the wages of the supervisory staff and the labourers were also incurred exclusively for the agricultural activity of the petitioner and the authorities could not have apportioned the expenditure and the entire expenditure should have been allowed as a deduction.

7. The case of the Revenue, on the other hand, is that the expenditure on pay and allowances of the staff and security personnel was not only not necessary and superfluous but that the assessee failed to establish that the expenditure was incurred for the purpose of deriving agricultural income or that the staff, including the security staff, were exclusively employed for the purpose of agricultural activity of the assessee and it was asserted that the expenditure was not relatable to the agricultural activity alone and the authorities had rightly apportioned the expenditure and limited the relief.

8. That some expenditure was incurred by the petitioner for the agricultural activity has not been doubted by any of the statutory authorities and has not been questioned by the Revenue before us either. It is only the apportionment between the agricultural activity and the non-agricultural activity of the petitioner which has given rise to the filing of these cases. The Tribunal, on the basis of the data submitted before the authorities and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, found that, up to the assessment years 1976-77, the assessee had claimed some expenditure not wholly within the gross agricultural income, whereas for the assessment, years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80, the assessee's gross income was somewhat more than the claimed expenditure. It was noticed that there had been a lease of a substantial portion of the agricultural land by the assessee to the Tamil Nadu State Farm Corporation Ltd. subsequent to 1975 at the rate of Rs. 100 per acre per annum. The Tribunal accepted the findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Assessing Officer that, as regards the pay and allowances of the estate guards, a part of the expenditure was relatable to the non-agricultural activity of the assessee also, viz., guarding the township and industrial structures and that the guards were not exclusively engaged for the agricultural activity of the assessee. Same was the view of the Tribunal in respect of the wages paid to the supervisory staff and labourers. The Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Vellore, after a careful appraisal of the entire material placed before him and giving his thoughtful consideration to the submissions raised and the evidence produced by the petitioner, opined as follows:

“… No evidence was produced to show that the staff was exclusively employed for agricultural operations. The argument of counsel was hypothetical in nature. The stipulation in condition 12 of the lease deed that, in the event of a dispute regarding the yield from the cashew tope, the decision of the Superintending Engineer and Township Commissioner will be final is suggestive that the expenditure related to the common establishment intended for other items of work relating to Township Administration as well, part of whose work might have been to attend to realisation of agricultural income.

12. When counsel was required to show proof at the time of hearing, all that he produced did not clinch the issue and there was nothing to show that the expenditure incurred was for the specific purpose of establishment solely employed for earning exclusively the agricultural income. The factum of incurring the expenditure was not, therefore, sought to be questioned. The assessing authority did his best and has, perhaps, been liberal in having allowed ⅓rd of the expenditure on a reasonable assumption that it would perhaps be fair to quantify the cost of the services involved at ⅓rd. As a matter of fact, it is ironical that an august body of a public sector undertaking should be helpless to show that the expenditure incurred was exclusively for the earning of the agricultural income. The points urged by counsel were of general nature such as (1) that, in the nature of things and in the industrial atmosphere set up of Neyveli Lignite Corporation, the agricultural labourers or other staff could not have been used for other purposes and (2) that in the trade union atmosphere, no employee would have allowed himself to do any other work. This argument of counsel does appear to be very plausible at first blush but, if it is scrutinised closely, it will be apparent that it is fallacious and cannot be accepted. Far from discharging the onus that lies on the assessee to prove that the expenditure was solely referable to the earning of the agricultural income, these points are at once seen to be categorical assertions and hypothetical statements. As a matter of fact, I am inclined to the view that the Agricultural Income-tax Officer was perhaps more liberal in having allowed even ⅓rd of the expenditure, and 1 should think that, in having allowed this, he should have been solely guided by the mere fact, that after all, the assessee was none other than a public sector undertaking. In view of the foregoing discussions and having regard to the observations of the Appellate Tribunal, it is impossible to evolve a better method of arriving at the quantum of expenditure on establishment, relating to the earning of the agricultural income, than the way in which the assessing authority has done in this case.”

9. No documentary evidence or record was produced before the statutory authorities to establish that the expenditure claimed by the assessee by way of deduction was relatable exclusively to the agricultural activity of the assessee. In the absence of any such evidence, the only course available to the statutory authorities was to make estimates on the basis of the available material and determine the expenditure which could be relatable to the agricultural activity of the assessee. The Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act is a special enactment and an assessee claiming deductions has to fall within the four corners of the Act. The assessee in these cases did not lead any evidence to prove that the expenditure claimed by it with regard to the salary, etc., of the estate guards, supervisory staff and the labourers was exclusively relatable to the agricultural activity of the assessee. It did not produce any material to show that the estate guards, the supervisory staff and the labourers were exclusively employed for the agricultural activities. With a view to claim deduction, it was essential for the assessee to establish that the staff was employed and deployed exclusively for the agricultural activity and since it failed to establish that by producing any material or evidence, the statutory authorities had the option either to reject the claim in toto or to do substantial justice and arrive at an estimate and they fairly adopted the latter course. The assessee did not produce any attendance register, expenditure register, or any like record to substantiate its claim, but supported the same through oral sub-. missions made by its counsel which were considered by the authorities to be of a “hypothetical” nature. In the absence of any evidence or proof led by the assessee, no fault can be found with the apportionment of the expenditure by the statutory authorities. Whether the expenditure, deduction whereof is claimed by the assessee, is attributable to agriculture and could have been actually incurred was a matter which required verification by the statutory authorities. The onus was on the assessee to produce material by way of evidence in support of its plea and since the assessee failed to discharge that onus, this court, in exercise of its revisional powers, would not interfere with the findings recorded by the authorities as regards the apportionment of the expenditure claimed which, in the estimation of the authorities, could alone be relatable to the agricultural activity of the assessee. We are not impressed with the submission of learned counsel for the Revenue either that since the cashew tope had been leased out, there was no need to keep any watch and engage any estate guards. The statutory authorities found, on the basis of whatever material was available before them, that the expenditure was incurred partly for the agricultural activity and we see no reason to interfere with that finding on a hypothetical assumption that no estate guards could have been required to guard the cashew tope when the statutory authorities found that part of the expenditure for engaging the estate guards was certainly relatable exclusively to the agricultural activity of the assessee. The estimation of the apportionment of the expenditure by the authorities below is rational and since the assessee had failed to satisfactorily prove that the staff was engaged wholly and exclusively on agricultural farms throughout the year for its agricultural activity, apportionment was the only logical method of dealing with the claim of the assessee for deduction. The assessee has been unable to produce any material even before us from which any conclusion may be possible that the apportionment made by the statutory authorities defies either logic or reason or is otherwise perverse. The impugned order does not, therefore, warrant any interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.

10. Consequently, all the nine tax revision cases fail and are dismissed. No costs.