Skip to content


Ouchterlony Valley Estates (1938) Ltd. Vs. Government of Madras. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Case No. 206 of 1969 (Revision No. 137 of 1969)
Reported in[1974]97ITR703(Mad)
AppellantOuchterlony Valley Estates (1938) Ltd.
RespondentGovernment of Madras.
Excerpt:
- .....has been allocated to the tea income and that in the income-tax assessment, the assessee has been allowed a deduction of the said sum. but it appears that the actual assessment order had not been produced before the tribunal. the tribunal, therefore, ultimately proceeded to reject the claim of the assessee for a deduction of the entirety of the sum of rs, 2,000.before us, the learned counsel for the assessee contends that the tribunal is not justified in rejecting the assessees claim for deduction at least to the extent of rs. 1,220 which represents the stock exchange listing fee referable to the tea income. it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee that the tea and coffee income from the estate is in the ratio of 36 : 23, that the expenditure referable to the tea income.....
Judgment:

RAMANUJAM J., - The assessee in this case claimed a sum of Rs. 2,000 spent as stock exchange listing fee, as a deduction under the provisions of section 5 (e) of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act in respect of the assessment for the year 1966-67. The assessing authority as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the said claim of the assessee. On appeal before the Tribunal, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the said sum, so far as it is referable to the cultivation of tea, should have been allowed as a deduction. The Tribunal held that even in respect of the tea income, the stock exchange listing fee referable to that income cannot be allowed as a deduction, for the reason that the payment has nothing to do with the earning of the tea income. Before the Tribunal, it was also submitted by the assessee that a sum of Rs. 1,220 out of the said sum of Rs. 2,000 has been allocated to the tea income and that in the income-tax assessment, the assessee has been allowed a deduction of the said sum. But it appears that the actual assessment order had not been produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, therefore, ultimately proceeded to reject the claim of the assessee for a deduction of the entirety of the sum of Rs, 2,000.

Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee contends that the Tribunal is not justified in rejecting the assessees claim for deduction at least to the extent of Rs. 1,220 which represents the stock exchange listing fee referable to the tea income. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee that the tea and coffee income from the estate is in the ratio of 36 : 23, that the expenditure referable to the tea income having been allowed under the Income-tax Act, the same allowance has to be given under the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act. As 'agricultural income', as defined in the Agricultural Income-tax Act, takes in the definition of 'agricultural income' under the Indian Income-tax Act, whatever deductions are allowed under the Indian Income- tax Act should also be allowed in respect of tea income under the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is the view we have taken in T.C. No. 300 of 1967. Dealing with a similar claim of the assessee for deduction in that case, we expressed :

'Having regard to the definition of 'agricultural income' in article 366 (1) of the Constitution and that found in the Income-tax Act, it is not open to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer to reopen the computation and adopt a different method of computation than the one adopted by the income-tax authorities, so as to increase the agricultural income, for that would mean that the Agricultural Income-tax Officer can compute the agricultural income without reference to the constitutional definition as also the provisions of the Income-tax Act. The decisions referred to above clearly establish the principle that the Agricultural Income-tax Officer could assess under the Agricultural Income-tax Act only that portion of the income from tea left unassessed by the income-tax authorities as being agricultural income.'

We, therefore, hold that, if the assessee in the present case establishes the fact that the portion of the stock exchange listing fee referable to tea income has been allowed as deduction under the Indian Income-tax Act by producing the assessment or appellate orders, the same has to be allowed as a deduction under the Agricultural Income-tax Act also. We find that the assessee did not produce before the Tribunal the proceedings of the Income-tax Officer or the appellate authority where the said claim for deduction was upheld. But the learned counsel for the assessee states that he will now produce the proceedings under the Income-tax Act where such deduction has been allowed, provided some time is given. We, however, consider that it is proper to remit the matter to the Tribunal, enabling the assessee to produce the proceedings of the income-tax authorities for establishing his case that a deduction towards 'stock exchange listing fee' had been allowed under the Income-tax act is far as at relates to tea income. The order of the Tribunal is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in the light of what has been stated above. We, however, uphold the view of the Tribunal so far as the deduction claimed towards the portion of the stock exchange listing fee referable to coffee income is concerned. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //