Appeal No 145 of 1960
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 18 1958 of the Kerala High Court in Tax Revision Case No 12 of 1957
VA Seyid Muhamad and Sardar Bahadur for the appellant
CK Daphtary Solicitor General of India Thomas Vellapally section N Andley J B Dadachanji Rameshwar Nath and P L Vohra for the respondent
December 15
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 286 KAPUR J
This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala in Tax Revision No 12 of 1957
The respondent who is the assessee owned an estate of 590 acres in South Malabar district now in Kerala State
Out of that area 85 acres were covered by Pepper Arecanut Paddy and Coconut cultivation while the rest ie 505 acres had rubber plantations upon it
Of that area 235 acres were occupied by immature non bearing rubber trees and 270  acres had mature rubber trees
The assessment relates to the year 1955 56 the accounting year being the year ending March 31 1955
The respondent claimed from out of the income expenses relating to the maintenance and upkeep of immature non bearing rubber trees
The Agricultural Income tax Tribunal held that the expenses incurred on the whole area under rubber plantations were deductible expenses and remanded the case for ascertaining the expenses incurred in forking and manuring of the non bearing and immature rubber grown areas also
The appellant then preferred a revision application to the High Court under section 541 of the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income Tax Act 1955 Mad
V of 1955
The High Court held that the amount spent on the upkeep and maintenance of immature rubber trees was a deductible expenditure under section 5e of that Act which provides S5 Computation of agricultural income The agricultural income of a person shall be computed after making the following deductions namely        e any expenditure incurred in the previous year not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the plantation
The provisions of section 5e of the Madras Act applicable to the present case are the same as those of section 5j of the Travancore Cochin Agricultural Income Tax Act Act XXII of 1950
The only difference is in the last few words
In place of for the purpose of the plantation in the former the words for the purpose of 287 deriving the agricultural income are used in the latter
If anything the words of the former Act are more favourable to the respondent
In Travancore Rubber and Tea Company Ltd vs Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Kerala 1 which was an assessment under the Travancore Cochin Act we have decided the question of deductibility of sums expended for purposes of forking manuring etc
of immature rubber trees
That judg ment will govern this case also
This appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs in this court and the High Court


Summary:
The assessee owned an Estate of 590 acres out of which 235 acres were occupied by immature non bearing rubber trees for the maintenance and upkeep of which the respondent claimed expenses from out of the income which was allowed both by the Agricultural Income Tax Tribunal and the High Court
The appellant came up by special leave
Held that the provisions of section 5e of the Madras Planta tions Agricultural Income Tax Act 1955 Mad
V of 1955 applicable to the present case and those of section 51 of the Travancore Cochin Agricultural Income Tax Act 1950 Tr
Co XXII of 1950 being the same the judgment in Travancore Rubber  Tea Co Ltd vs The Commissioner of Agricultural Income tax Kerala in which the question of deductibility of sums expended for purposes of forking manuring etc
of immature rubber trees had been decided will govern this case
Travancore Rubber  Tea Co Ltd vs The Commissioner of Agricultural Income tax Kerala   applied