Common parlance and non-obstante clause rules govern tea saplings taxability and company income computation under the Bengal Act.

An undefined commercial expression in a taxing statute must be construed in its ordinary common parlance sense: tea saplings were not treated as "tea" for the charging provision of the Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act, so income from their sale was not taxable. A special computation provision for a company, containing a non-obstante clause, prevailed over the general computation provision and the rules framed under it: section 7A governed depreciation and computation of agricultural income, and section 7 with Rule 3 did not apply. The tribunal's contrary approach was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh assessment after hearing the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether income derived from sale of tea saplings fell within the charging provision of the Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1944. (ii) Whether depreciation and computation of agricultural income of a company were governed by section 7A of the Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1944 or by section 7 and Rule 3 of the Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Rules, 1944.

Issue (i): Whether income derived from sale of tea saplings fell within the charging provision of the Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1944.

Analysis: The charging provision taxed agricultural income in respect of tea, but the statute did not define tea. The Court applied the common parlance test and held that saplings are not understood as tea in ordinary commercial or dictionary usage. The definition of tea in the Tea Act, 1953 was not adopted into the Bengal Act, and in any event did not encompass saplings. Tea saplings were treated as a distinct agricultural produce and not as tea within the charging section.

Conclusion: The income from sale of tea saplings was held not taxable under the charging provision and was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether depreciation and computation of agricultural income of a company were governed by section 7A of the Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1944 or by section 7 and Rule 3 of the Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Rules, 1944.

Analysis: Section 7A was a special provision for a company, firm, or other association of persons and required computation in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. Being introduced with a non-obstante clause, it prevailed over section 7. Rule 3 was confined to allowances under section 7 and did not apply to section 7A. The tribunal's approach in applying section 7 and Rule 3 despite section 7A was held to be contrary to the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The Court held that section 7A governed the company's computation and depreciation, and the contrary view of the tribunal was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned tribunal order was quashed and the matter was sent back for a fresh assessment in accordance with law after hearing the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute uses an undefined commercial expression, it must be construed in its ordinary common parlance sense, and a special computation provision containing a non-obstante clause prevails over the general computation provision and the subordinate rules framed for that general provision.

---