COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX Vs. CHENCAND ESTATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but an interesting question arises in this tax case. The Tribunal was asked not to allow an expediter amounting to Rs. 1,005 which, admittedly, was incurred by the assessee for supplying vacancies in the re-planted area. What apparently was contended for was, that in a re-planted area, if plants dry up and in the place of such dried up plants fresh plants are supplanted and expenditure in incurred for the purpose, whether it would be an expense "incurred in the previous year" of cultivating the crop for the purpose of re-planting. The case of the assessee was that during the previous year in question this expenditure was incurred solely to fill up gaps in the area which was already the subject of re-plantation in the previous year and the necessary expenditure incurred therefor. But the revenues contention was that even such expenses incurred would really amount to expenses for replanting within the meaning of the first proviso to section 5(g) of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. The Tribunal was of the view that the expenditure cannot be characterised as re-planting expenditure. As against this the present tax case had been filed.

(2.) NO other question of law arises in the order of the Tribunal and this tax case is therefore, dismissed.