1964 (3) TMI 126 - HC - Income Tax

High Court declines Tribunal's questions on agricultural income exemption under Income-tax Act.

The High Court of Kerala declined to answer questions referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the exemption of agricultural income under ... - Issues:1. Interpretation of provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 regarding the exemption of agricultural income.2. Determination of whether the process employed by the assessee in converting coconuts into copra and retted husks qualifies as a process ordinarily employed by a cultivator to render the produce fit for the market.3. Analysis of the scope of two remand orders issued by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.Interpretation of Provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act:The High Court of Kerala addressed a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the exemption of agricultural income under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The specific question was whether the profit from converting coconuts into copra and retted husks falls under the definition of agricultural income as per sections 2(1)(b)(ii) and 4(3)(viii) of the Act. The Court delved into the definitions provided in the Act and analyzed whether the process employed by the assessee qualified as a process ordinarily employed by a cultivator to render the produce fit for the market.Determination of Process Employed by the Assessee:The Court examined the nature of the process undertaken by the assessee in converting coconuts into copra and retted husks. The Appellate Tribunal opined that the operations performed by the assessee were essential to make the produce marketable and fell within the definition of agricultural income exemption. The Court emphasized that the process employed by the assessee was manual labor to prepare the produce for the market, which aligned with the definition provided in the Act. The Court highlighted that the question of whether the process qualifies as one ordinarily employed by a cultivator is a factual inquiry, as stated in previous judicial precedents.Scope of Remand Orders by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner:The Court also considered the scope of two remand orders issued by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in relation to the assessment years 1950-51 and 1953-54. The Appellate Tribunal discussed the contentions raised by both parties regarding the actions taken on the profits from the conversion of coconuts into husks and retting. The Court clarified that a question of law cannot arise if the Appellate Tribunal has not pronounced on the matter, leading to the decision to decline answering the first question referred.Conclusion:The High Court of Kerala concluded by stating that since the questions involved were not purely legal but factual in nature, they declined to answer both questions referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the decision did not signify an endorsement of the Tribunal's conclusion and left room for different interpretations in the future. The reference was answered without any order as to costs, and a copy of the judgment was to be forwarded to the Appellate Tribunal as required by the Act.