A TPARTHASARATHIAH AND BROS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act (to be referred to as the "Act" hereinafter).

(2.) In both these references, a common question of law has been referred for our decision. That question is :

(3.) The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the point of law referred to us as found by the Tribunal are as follows : The assessee has tamarind trees in the lands which are in his possession either as owner or as mortgagee. He plucked tamarind from those trees; he made them into flower tamarind by a process of cleaning which involved removing fibre as well as seeds and thereafter sold the same in the market. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that raw tamarind as such had also a market; therefore, its conversion into flower tamarind is not an agricultural process; consequently, the extra income realised by the sale of flower tamarind cannot be considered as agricultural income. It did not give any finding as to what was the process ordinarily employed by the cultivators before marketing their tamarind. It was of the opinion that as raw tamarind as such also could be marketed, the assessee could not claim the benefit of section 2(1)(b)(ii) of the "Act" merely because, in his view, the flower tamarind will get him better price. The parties are at issue as to the true meaning of the words "process ordinarily employed by a cultivator to render the produce raised by him fit to be taken to market" found in section 2(1)(b)(ii). According to the revenue, before an assessee can claim the benefit of that provision, he must establish two conditions, i.e., (1) the process employed by him is the one ordinarily employed by a cultivator, and (2) the process employed must be such as just to make the produce fit for marketing. But, according to the learned counsel for the assessee, the process must be that which is ordinarily employed before marketing the produce raised.