PETITIONER:
THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURALINCOME-TAX
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE CALVARY MOUNT ESTATES (PRIVATE)LTD.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
15/12/1960
BENCH:
KAPUR, J.L.
BENCH:
KAPUR, J.L.
HIDAYATULLAH, M.
SHAH, J.C.
CITATION:
1961 AIR 1099 1961 SCR (3) 285
ACT:
Agricultural Income Tax-Rubber Plantation-Expenditure on
immature trees-Whether permissible deduction-Madras Plan-
tations Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (Mad. V of 1955),
s. 5(e).
HEADNOTE:
The assessee owned an Estate of 590 acres out of which 235
acres were occupied by immature non-bearing rubber trees,
for the maintenance and upkeep of which the respondent
claimed expenses from out of the income, which was allowed
both by the Agricultural Income Tax Tribunal and the High
Court. The appellant came up by special leave.
Held, that the provisions of s. 5(e) of the Madras Planta-
tions Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1955 (Mad. V of 1955),
applicable to the present case, and those of s. 5(1) of the
Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 (Tr.
Co. XXII of 1950) being the same, the judgment in Travancore
Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Agricultural
Income-tax, Kerala, in which the question of deductibility
of sums expended for purposes of forking, manuring etc. of
immature rubber trees had been decided, will govern this
case.
Travancore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of
Agricultural Income-tax, Kerala, [1961] 3 S.C.R. 279,
applied.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No, 145 of 1960.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
March 18, 1958, of the Kerala High Court in Tax Revision
Case No. 12 of 1957.
V.A. Seyid Muhamad and Sardar Bahadur, for the appellant.
C.K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, Thomas
Vellapally, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath
and P. L. Vohra, for the respondent.
1960. December 15. The Judgment of the Court was delivered
by
286
KAPUR, J.-This is an appeal by special leave against the
judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala in Tax
Revision No. 12 of 1957.
The respondent who is the assessee owned an estate of 590
acres in South Malabar district, now in Kerala State. Out
of that area 85 acres were covered by Pepper, Arecanut,
Paddy and Coconut cultivation while the rest i.e. 505 acres
had rubber plantations upon it. Of that area 235 acres were
occupied by immature non-bearing rubber trees and 270′ acres
had mature rubber trees. The assessment relates to the year
1955-56, the accounting year being the year ending March 31,
1955. The respondent claimed from out of the income
expenses relating to the maintenance and upkeep of immature
non-bearing rubber trees. The Agricultural Income tax
Tribunal held that the expenses incurred on the whole area
under rubber plantations were deductible expenses and
remanded the case for ascertaining the expenses incurred in
forking and manuring of the ”non-bearing and immature”
rubber grown areas also. The appellant then preferred a
revision application to the High Court under s. 54(1) of the
Madras Plantations Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1955 (Mad.
V of 1955). The High Court held that the amount spent on
the upkeep and maintenance of immature rubber trees was a
deductible expenditure under s. 5(e) of that Act which
provides:
S.5 “Computation of agricultural income:
The agricultural income of a person shall be
computed after making the following
deductions,
namely:…………………………
:……….. (e) any expenditure incurred in
the previous year (not being in the nature of
capital expenditure or personal expenses of
the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and
exclusively for the purpose of the
plantation;”.
The provisions of s. 5(e) of the Madras Act, applicable to
the present case, are the same as those of s. 5(j) of the
Travancore Cochin Agricultural Income Tax Act (Act XXII of
1950). The only difference is in the last few words. In
place of “for the purpose of the plantation” in the former,
the words “for the purpose of
287
deriving the agricultural income” are used in the latter.
If anything the words of the former Act are more favourable
to the respondent.
In Travancore Rubber and Tea Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Agricultural Income Tax, Kerala (1), which was an assessment
under the Travancore Cochin Act, we have decided the
question of deductibility of sums expended for purposes of
forking, manuring etc. of immature rubber trees. That judg-
ment will govern this case also. This appeal therefore
fails and is dismissed with costs in this court and the High
Court.
Appeal dismissed
___________________