- (1.) This appeal by special leave arises from a decision of the Kerala High court refusing to direct the tribunal to submit the two questions set out by the assessee in its application under S. 60 (2) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (Act 22 of 1950). The questions that the assessee wanted the tribunal to refer to the High court and which the tribunal refused to refer are : (1) Whether the fact that the applicant apportioned the sum of Rs. 79,680. 00 out of the general revenue expenses of its estate towards the immature area and capitalised the same for purposes of its accounts precluded the appellant from claiming the same as revenue expenses for the purpose of agricultural income-tax assessment (2) Whether the tribunal ought not to have considered the nature of the expenses amounting to Rs. 79,680. 00 for the purpose of determining whether it is allowable expenditure or not irrespective of the way it was dealt with by the applicant for the purpose of its accounts
(2.) The tribunal in its order refusing to refer those questions observed : The assessees have treated a sum of Rs. 79,680. 00 being a portion of the general charges as capital expenditure for all purposes including working out the managing agents' commission. If the general charges were not in any way connected with maintenance of immature area, the Company would not have apportioned and capitalised a part of such expenditure as attributable to immature area. It is, therefore, a. matter of fact that even according to the assessee, the above expenditure relates to maintenance of immature area. The claim is therefore not allowable as per explanation (2) to S. 5 of the Act.
(3.) This question was considered by the tribunal while dealing with the assessee's appeal before it and the tribunal observed in its order: "The first contention raised before us is that the Deputy Commissioner went wrong in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 79,680. 00 on the sole ground that the expenditure has been capitalised in the appellant-company's accounts. The identical question under similar circumstances, relating to the assessment on the appellant-company for 1963-64 arose in Appeal AITA. 224/64. We have as per our order dated 19/11/1965 found the contention against the appellant-company. For the reasons discussed therein, we find that the authorities below are perfectly justified in disallowing the claim and we accordingly confirm it as correct. ";