1970 (5) TMI 3 - SC - Income Tax

Teak tree sale profits deemed capital not revenue, expenses not deductible

AKTKM Vishnudatta Antharjanam Versus Commissioner of Agricultural Income-Tax, Trivandrum

The court determined that the sale proceeds of teak trees, which were uprooted entirely for replanting rubber, were classified as capital rather than ... Receipt from the sale of teak trees for the purpose of planting the area with rubber is capital in nature and exempt from Agricultural IT Act - Assessee's appeal is allowed Issues:Assessment of agricultural income under the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 for the years 1963-64 and 1964-65. Determination of whether the sale proceeds of teak trees constitute capital or revenue. Allowability of expenses incurred for obtaining agricultural income as deductions from the sale proceeds of trees.Analysis:The case involved appeals arising from the assessment of agricultural income under the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 for the years 1963-64 and 1964-65. The assessee initially declared a net agricultural income for each year but later additional income from the sale of teak trees was revealed during the assessment process. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer disallowed certain expenses and assessed the income accordingly. The subsequent appeals to higher authorities confirmed the assessments, leading to the matter being referred to the High Court. The High Court considered whether the sale proceeds of teak trees should be classified as capital or revenue and also addressed the deductibility of expenses incurred for generating agricultural income.The primary issue before the court was to determine if the sale proceeds of teak trees were to be treated as capital or revenue. The court noted that the teak trees had been planted years earlier and were cut and removed entirely for planting rubber, eliminating any possibility of future income from the trees. The court referred to previous cases to establish that the realization from the sale of trees with roots intact could be considered income, but in this case, where the roots were also removed for planting other trees like rubber, the situation was different. The court applied the test of income as a periodical return from a definite source and concluded that once the trees were removed with roots, the source ceased to produce income, affecting the capital structure.The court emphasized that the profit motive behind planting the teak trees did not determine whether the sale proceeds were capital or income. It highlighted that the sale of trees with roots affects the capital structure as it disposes of a part of the assets, making the sale proceeds a capital transaction rather than revenue. The court cited precedents and principles to support its decision that the sale proceeds in this case did not constitute revenue but were capital in nature. Consequently, the court answered the first question in favor of the assessee, ruling that the sale proceeds were capital. As a result, the second question regarding the deductibility of expenses became unnecessary to address. The court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and awarded costs to the assessee.