TEEKOY RUBBERS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Agricultural Income tax Appellate Tribunal has made this reference under S.60(1) of the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The year of assessment is 1962-63 and the question referred reads thus:-

(2.) It is not contended before us that this amount can be claimed as a deduction under any provision other than S.5 of the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950. The relevant sub-section is sub-s.(j) which is in these terms:-

(3.) The deductions allowable under S.5, we think, must relate to deductions from agricultural income earned by the person sought to be assessed. So the question arises as to whether the sum of Rs. 50,388/- received from the Rubber Board by the assessee company as rubber replanting subsidy can be said to be agricultural income. This is an amount paid to the assessee company by virtue of the provisions in the Rubber Act, 1947. A reference to S.9A and 9B as well as S.12 of that Act indicates that these must be payments either from the general fund or from the pool fund as envisaged by that statute. And it also seems to be clear that the bulk of it must have come out of the amounts that have been collected from persons like the assessee company by way of cess as envisaged by S.12(1) of the Rubber Act, 1947. Even so it is difficult to treat the amount received from the Rubber Board by the assessee company as agricultural income. Dealing with the question what is agricultural income the Privy Council observed in Commissioner of Income tax v. Raja Bahadur Kamakhaya Narayan Singh reported in 1948 (16) ITR 325 :