Case: The Travancore Rubber And Teaco., Ltd Vs. The Commissioner Of Agriculturalincome-Tax, Kerala

2. The appeals relate to three accounting years 1950, 1951 and 1952 (assessment years 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54). The appellants have rubber plantations and in the accounting year 1950, corresponding to the assessment year 1951-52, the appellants had under cultivation 3,558.84 acres out of which 334.64 acresd had immature rubber trees growing and the rest, i.e., 3,224.20 acres mature rubber yielding trees under cultivation. In that year a sum of Rs. 19056-0-9, which was expended for the upkeep and maintenance of immature portion of the rubber plantation, was allowed by the Agricultural Income-tax Tribunal and at the instance of the respondent a reference was made to the High Court under S. 60(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act (Act XXII of 1950) hereinafter termed the Act and that was reference No. 18 of 1955.3. During the accounting year 1951 corresponding to the assessment year 1952-53 the appellant had under cultivation a total area of 3,426.55 acres of which 3,091.91 acres were mature yielding trees and 334.64 acres had immature rubber trees. In that year a sum of Rs. 59,271-9-5 was expenditure incurred for the upkeep and maintenance of immature portion of the rubber estate. That sum was allowed by the Agricultural Income-tax Tribunal and at the instance of the respondent a reference was made under S. 60(1) of the Act to the High Court and that was reference No. 19 of 1955.4. In Agricultural Income-tax Reference No. 15 of 1955 which related to accounting year 1952 and the assessment year 1953-54, the area under cultivation was 3,453.65 out of which 2,967.91 acres had mature rubber yielding trees and 485.74 acres had immature rubber growing trees. In that year the amount expended on the maintenance and tending of the immature rubber trees was Rs.In that case, however, the Agricultural Income-tax Tribunal rejected the appellants claim and disallowed the expenditure. At the instance of the appellant a case was stated to the High Court under S. 60(1) of the Act and was answered in the negative and against the appellant. In all the cases the assessee company is the appellant and the main question for decision is whether the amount expended for the upkeep and maintenance of the immature rubber trees is a permissible deduction under S. 5(j) of the Act.5. The charging Section under the Act is S. 3 and S. 5 relates to computation of agricultural income. It5 "The agricultural income of a person shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely:-....... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... ... ... .... ...(j) any expenditure (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 deriving the agriculturalregard to this income the High Courtfind it impossible to say that the amounts spent on the upkeep and maintenance of the immature rubber plants were laid out or expended "for the purpose of deriving the agricultural income, much less that they were laid out or expended "wholly and exclusively for that purpose. The agricultural income, in the context, can only mean the agricultural income obtained in the accounting year concerned and not the agricultural income of any other period.

Court's reasoning:
In our opinion the High Court has taken an erroneous view of the relevant provision. It is not denied that the expenditure claimed as a deduction was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of deriving income but the use of the definite article "the before agricultural income has given rise to the interpretation that deduction is to be from the income of the year in which the trees on which the amount claimed was expended bore anythat case has no relevancy to the facts of the present case nor has that passage any applicability to the facts of the present case. The question there was whether certain payments made were by way of capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. The assessee acquired a lease from Government for twenty years and in addition to paying the rent and royalties for the lease the assessee had to pay two further sums as protection fees under the terms of the lease. Those sums were held to be capital expenditure inasmuch as they were incurred for the acquisition of an asset or an advantage of enduring nature and were no part of the working or operational expenses for carrying on the businesses of the assessee.7. In our opinion the amount expended on the superintendence, weeding, etc., of the whole estate should have been allowed against the profits earned and it is no answer to the claim for a deduction that part of those expenses produced no return in that year because all the trees were not yielding rubber in that year.