TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (3) TMI 66
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as decided in ITRC Nos. 13, 14 and 15 of 1968, the Tribunal is justified in confirming the disallowance of proportionate general charges of Rs. 4,058 in respect of Chittady Estate, Rs. 4,598 in respect of Vengathanam Estate and of Rs. 8,462 in respect of Vellandy Estate ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in the light of the decision as reported in [1967] 66 ITR 710 (SC) (CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd.) the Tribunal is justified in disallowing the boundary wall repairs of Rs. 1,275 and cart road maintenance of Rs. 4,418 ? " The assessee, the Tropical Plantations Ltd., Kottayam, filed a return for the year 1968-69 disclosing a net income of Rs. 3,77,270. On scrutiny of the return, the assessing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l expenses excluding the salary to the doctor, contingencies, cart road repairs, provident fund, advance expenses, maternity benefits, sickness benefits, etc., which are common to mature and immature area. The apportionment is on acreage basis. We find that the same is only in order. It is therefore confirmed." The common expenses in respect of the Chittady Estate and Vengathanam Estate and Vellandy Estate were claimed to relate to the immature area of the rubber plantation in the estate. The assessee's complaint was that the apportionment between the immature and the mature area of the estate violated the principle laid down in Commr. of Agrl. IT v. Johnsons Estates & Agencies (P.) Ltd. [1964] 52 ITR 629 (Ker). In that case, a Division ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial before us even the sheet No. 31 mentioned by the Tribunal is not part of the paper book to differ from its conclusion even if we have the power and the inclination to do so on this question of fact. What the department has done is to divide the total of the estate or overhead expenses by the number of acres comprising the estate and then multiply the expenses per acre by the number of acres covered by the immature plants in the estate of the assessee. This is an arbitrary approach which cannot be justified." To complete the discussion, we may quote s. 5(j) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, and Expl. 2 to the said section. These are as follows: "5. Computation of agricultural income.--The agricultural income of a person shall be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and decided afresh by the Tribunal. Question No. 2 : We may mention at the outset itself that the decision in CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 710 (SC), cited by the Tribunal in referring question No. 2, seems to have no application. The assessee claimed deduction of expenses spent for the upkeep of a cart road and a boundary wall. These were claimed as necessary expenses incurred for the purpose of deduction and preservation of the rubber estate. The deduction was sought to be justified with respect to the provisions of ss. 5(d) and 5(m)(ii) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act. Counsel for the assessee contended before us that he was relying also on clause (j) of s. 5. The principle of the decision of the Supreme Cour....