Case: Anglo American Direct Tea Tradinig Co. Ltd., &amp; Others Vs. CAIT, Kerala

Agricultural Income Tax Act read with R.15 of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Rules. 7. Our attention was drawn to the provisions of (a) S.8(2), 24(1) proviso, 24(1) proviso, 25(4) and 25(5) of the Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1944, and R.7 and 8 of the Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Rules, 1944, (b) S.8 of the Mysore Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1957 and R.6 of the Mysore Agricultural Income Tax Rules, 1957, (c) S.8 of the Coorg Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1951, (d) the second proviso to S.8 of the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1939 and R.5 of the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Rules, 1939, (e) Explanation.1 to S.2(a)(2) of the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1955 and R.7(1) of the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income Tax Rules, 1955 and (f) R.5 of the Bihar Agricultural Income Tax Rules, 1949. Under some Acts and Rules, the Agricultural Income Tax Officer is bound to adopt the assessment of the tea income made by the central income tax authorities. But under some other Acts and Rules, he is authorised in specials cases to disregard this assessment and to make a fresh computation of the tea income. We express no opinion on the construction of these Acts and Rules. For the purpose of these appeals, it is sufficient to say that the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act and Rules do not confer upon the Agricultural Income Tax Officer the power to disregard the assessment of the tea income already made by the central income tax authorities. We are unable to introduce by way of implication in a taxing statute a provision which requires explicit statement. 8. Difficulties may arise in making an assessment of agricultural income under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act on the basis of the assessment of the tea income made by the Central income tax authorities. The previous year under S.2(o)(i) of the Kerala Act may be different from the previous year under the Indian Income Tax Act. This difficulty may be resolved by fixing the previous year for this class of income under S.2(o)(ii) in conformity with the previous year under the Indian Income Tax Act. But the artificial previous year under S.2-A is not subject to the provisions of S.2(o)(ii). Moreover, S.22 authorises the assessment of income for the period from the expiry of a previous year to the probable date of the departure of the assessee from the State. It may be difficult to make an assessment under S.22 or on the basis of the previous year under S.2-A in the absence of any rule fixing the income for a broken part of the year with reference to an assessment made under the Indian Income Tax Act. In spite of these and other difficulties in the working of the Act, we are unable to agree with the decision in Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Kerala v. Perunad Plantations Ltd. ((1965) 56 I.T.R. 193) or to hold that the Agricultural Income Tax Officer can ignore the assessment of the tea income already made by the central income tax authorities. 9. On behalf of the appellants, it was argued that the power to compute business income under R.24 read with S.10 of the Indian Income Tax Act having regard particularly to proviso (a) to sub-s. (2)(vi), the proviso to sub-s. 2 (vi-b), sub-clause (g) of the second proviso to sub-s. 2(xiv), sub-s (4-A) and the first proviso to sub-s. 5(a) of S.10 must be exercised by the Central Income Tax Officer alone, that there is no provision in the Kerala Act conferring this power on the Agricultural Income Tax Officer and that therefore the assessment of agricultural income must wait until the assessment by the Central Income Tax Officer under R.24 read with S.10. This wider question does not arise for decision and is left open. In all the cases before us, the assessments by the Central Income Tax Officer were completed before the Agricultural Income Tax Officer proceeded to assess the agricultural income. For the purpose of these appeals, it is sufficient to say that the Agricultural Income Tax Officer acting under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 is bound to follow the assessment of income by the Central Income Tax Officer under R.24 of the Income Tax Rules, 1922 and R.8 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 where such assessment has been made before the Agricultural Income Tax Officer proceeds to made the assessment under the Kerala Act. The question referred to the High Court is answered accordingly. We must not be understood to say that the assessment made by the Central Income Tax Officer under R.23 of the Income Tax Rules, 1922 or R.7 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 is in any way binding on the Agricultural Income Tax Officer. 10. In Civil Appeals Nos. 585 to 588 of 1966 and 589 to 591 of 1966, the Agricultural Income Tax Officer made a surcharged of 5 per cent for the assessment year 1957-58 under the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957. On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner held that the surcharge was rightly made. On further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal held that the levy of the surcharge was illegal. On the application of the respondent, the Appellate Tribunal referred the following additional question of law to the High Court : "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in holding that surcharge on agricultural income tax cannot cannot be levied for the assessment year 1957-58 ?". The High Court answered this question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. This decision must be set aside. In Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala ([1966] 3 S.C.R. 93 : [1965] 60 I.T.R. 262), this Court held that no surcharge on agricultural income can be levied under the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957 in respect of the assessment year 1957-58. The second question is answered accordingly in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 11.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]We express no opinion on the construction of these Acts and Rules. For the purpose of these appeals, it is sufficient to say that the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act and Rules do not confer upon the Agricultural Income Tax Officer the power to disregard the assessment of the tea income already made by the central income tax authorities. We are unable to introduce by way of implication in a taxing statute a provision which requires explicit statementIn Civil Appeals Nos. 585 to 588 of 1966 and 589 to 591 of 1966, the Agricultural Income Tax Officer made a surcharged of 5 per cent for the assessment year 1957-58 underthe Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act,. On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner held that the surcharge was rightly made. On further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal held that the levy of the surcharge was illegal. On the application of the respondent, the Appellate Tribunal referred the following additional question of law to the High Court : "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in holding that surcharge on agricultural income tax cannot cannot be levied for the assessment year 1957-58 ?". The High Court answered this question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. This decision must be set aside. In Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala ([1966] 3 S.C.R. 93 : [1965] 60 I.T.R. 262), this Court held that no surcharge on agricultural income can be levied underthe Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act,1957in respect of the assessment year. The second question is answered accordingly in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue