MATHEW E K Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE common question referred for our opinion read :

(2.) THE years of assessment are 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76. THE claim of the assessee for exemption is based on section 5(1)(viiia) of the Wealth-tax Act as it stood then. That means that the assets made mention of in this clause namely, growing crops (including fruits of trees) on agricultural land and grass on such land shall not be included in the net wealth of the assessee. This claim was, however, rejected by the Wealth-tax Officer. THE appeal taken therefrom before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, was not successful. THE Tribunal before which the assessee challenged the order was of the view that the claim was not sustainable and, consequently, confirmed the orders of the lower authorities. It is from this order of the Tribunal that the above questions arise for consideration.

(3.) INSTEAD of deducting the said value from the net wealth the assessing authority has treated the value of the tea bushes as a whole as forming part of the net wealth and, consequently, the claim for exemption was rejected. The order rejecting the claim, under the circumstances, is not sustainable. But, in the case of rubber plants, we cannot accept the argument of learned counsel for the assessee that the value of the latex that is produced from the plant shall be deducted from the net wealth. No such claim has been laid by the assessee before the assessing authority, nor, for that matter, either before the first appellate authority or before the Tribunal. We, therefore, are of the view that the said claim cannot be entertained in this proceeding. The finding of the assessing authority, confirmed by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal and relating to the contention that rubber plants shall not be treated as growing crop, under the circumstances, is unassailable. We, therefore, are of the view that the same cannot be interfered with.