Case: Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta Vs. Messrs Hantapara Tea Company, Limited, Calcutta

1. This is an appeal by special leave. It relates to the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1961-62, for which the relevant previous Year was the calendar year 1960.2. The assessee is a Tea Company. Upto the assessment year 195051 the Agricultural Income-tax Officer was accepting the computation of the total income from the growth, manufacture and sale of tea made by the Income Tax Officer and taking 60 per cent of the income determined as the agricultural income under R. 24 of the Income-tax Rules. On and from the assessment year 1951-52 the agricultural income-tax authorities started taking the market value of thatch, bamboo and fuel etc. grown in the tea estate and used in the tea business as 100 per cent agricultural income and after deducting the cost of cultivation thereof, taxed the whole of the resulting income on the basis of the market value of those articles. So from that assessment year the computation of the total income from tea by the Income-tax authorities was varied by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer and the assessee had to pay tax on a total income which was more than the income disclosed in the Profit and Loss Account.3. For the assessment yea: 1961-62, the assessee company was assessed to Income-tax under Rule 24 of the Income-tax Rules, on its Profit as per its Profit and Loss Account with certain modifications by the Incometax Officer. In the expenses debited in its accounts, only the expenses for raising of thatch, bamboo, fuel etc. grown in the tea estate and used in the tea business were included.4. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee raised the contention that the market value of agricultural produce grown in the tea estate and utilised by the assessee in the tea business, which had been assessed at 100 per cent to agricultural income-tax, must be taken into consideration in the computation of allowable expenditure. In support of that contention reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Dooars Tea Co. Ltd. v. Commr. of Agrl. Income-tax, West Bengal, (1962) 44 ITR 6 =(AIR 1962 SC 186 ). The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted that contention and directed the Income-tax Officer to modify the assessment accordingly. In appeal by the Revenue the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was accepted by the Tribunal. Thereafter at the instance of the Revenue the following question was referred to the High Court for itson the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the decision of the Supreme Court in Dooars Tea Co. Ltd. (1962) 44 ITR 6  = (AIR 1962 SC 186 ), was applicable to the computation of the assessees total income under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and in directing the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment according to law in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court." The High Court answered that question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Hence this appeal by the Revenue.

Reasoning: The ratio of that decision is that in the matter of computing the agricultural income it was not necessary that the agricultural produce should be sold and profit or gain mace from such sale before it is considered as agricultural income. It is sufficient if the assessee gets any benefit from the same, and what is to be taxed is the market value of the benefit received by the assessee and not the costs incurred by the assessee for raising the agricultural produce in question. If the assessee has to pay agricultural income-tax on the market value of the agricultural produce raised in his estate and used in his tea business it stands to reason that while determining the deductible expenditure incurred for the purpose of his business, the same rule viz. the market value of the produce used for the tea business should be taken into consideration, because in terms of money what he expended was the market value of the produce used in connection with his business. The fact that he used his own goods is immaterial.7. Now, turning back to the question referred to the High Court, even though the question is not properly framed, the question is sufficiently wide to decide the real point in issue. The latter part of the question covers the point that calls for decision. In that view there is no need either to reframe the question or to direct the Tribunal to submit a separate statement of case.