COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX Vs. PULLANGODE RUBBER AND PRODUCE CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum has sent up its statement of the case and forwarded the following question of law for our opinion, viz:

(2.) The Assessee M/s. Pullangode Rubber and Produce Company Limited, Calvetty, returned before the Agricultural Income Tax Officer for the assessment year 1970-71, an agricultural income of Rs. 2,18,013/-. On verification of the books of accounts and records the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner found that the income should not be accepted as it did not include the income received by them from M/s. E. J. Abraham and Company who -had executed three agreements dated 25-3-1965, 8-11-1968 and 4-8-1969 undertaking to pay an amount of Rs. 3,44,108.70 for cutting and removing trees belonging to the assessee. Ongoing through these agreements, executed by the assessee, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner found that M/s. E. J. Abraham and Company had agreed to pay the aforementioned amount during the year under assessment towards sale proceeds of old rubber trees. An amount of Rs. 2,97,716/- was to be treated as agricultural income received by the assessee towards the value of the latex extracted by M/s. E. J. Abraham and Company. We are concerned only with this aspect of the finding. On appeal the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales tax, Kottayam, concurred with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and dismissed the appeal. On further appeal the Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal took the view that the Assessee had sold only old and discarded rubber trees for a sum of Rs. 3,44,108.70 to M/s. E. J. Abraham and Company. According to the agreement the ownership of the trees was vested in the purchasers even though a longer period was given to them to cut and remove the trees from the estate. The Assessee had received consideration as the sale price of the trees sold; and even if the purchasers were extracting latex and making profits it was the view of the Tribunal that the consideration received for a contract which in its view was plainly and simply one for the sale of trees, could not be bifurcated as made up in part, of consideration for the trees, and in part of consideration for price of the latex extracted by the purchaser. Hence the Tribunal found that the Assessee was not receiving any taxable agricultural income in these transactions. With the rest of the Tribunal's order and the matters concerned therewith, we are not concerned in this reference.

(3.) When this reference came on before a Division Bench of this Court on an earlier occasion, it was found that the statement of the case was neither full nor complete, and that the Tribunal has not chosen to incorporate or send up the three agreements which had a vital bearing in answering to the question of law referred for our opinion, viz. the agreements dated 25-3-65, 8-11-1968 and 4-8-1969. The Tribunal was directed to forward a supplemental statement of the case incorporating the agreements. This has been done and the matter has come on before us.