E.K. MATHEW Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE real question that arises for consideration in the case of tea bushes is whether the "two leaves and bud" plucked and treated as the raw material for producing black tea can be treated as growing crop. That the assessing authority itself has taken such a view is clear from the decision in E. K. Joseph, E. K. Mathew and Bros v. CWT : [1985] 155 ITR 507 (Ker). We may, in this connection, refer to the finding of the assessing authority which reads :

(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.