http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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                        ___________________