CHERIAN DOMINIC Vs. COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the assessee, the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for our decision :

(2.) THE assessment year is 1959-60. THE assessee under an oral agreement with M/s. Kuttanad Rubber Co. Ltd. was entitled to slaughter tap the rubber trees in the estate. THE income in question was admittedly derived from this slaughter tapping. It was contended before the Agricultural Income-tax Officer that the income so derived is not agricultural income taxable under the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, for short, " the Act ". It was urged before the officer that the assessee had not conducted any basic agricultural operations or what may be termed "operations" as explained by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy, 1957 32 ITR 446 (SC).. This contention was negatived and there was an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. THE appeal too was dismissed and there was a further appeal before the Tribunal and before the Tribunal the contention that there was no agricultural income earned by the assessee was elaborated upon and two specific points were taken: (1) that the assessee had not performed any agricultural operations, and (2) that the assessee was not a person as defined under Section 2(m) of the Act. Relating to the first contention, the Tribunal said :

(3.) THE second contention raised before the Tribunal by the assessee was that the assessee did not either own the estate nor was he holding the property. This contention was negatived by the Tribunal observing thus :