1972 (11) TMI 21

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....950?" The assessment year is 1959-60. The assessee under an oral agreement with M/s. Kuttanad Rubber Co. Ltd. was entitled to slaughter tap the rubber trees in the estate. The income in question was admittedly derived from this slaughter tapping. It was contended before the Agricultural Income-tax Officer that the income so derived is not agricultural income taxable under the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, for short, "the Act". It was urged before the officer that the assessee had not conducted any basic agricultural operations or what may be termed "operations" as explained by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy. This contention was negatived and there was an appeal before the Appella....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another, either as owner, trustee, receiver, common manager, administrator or executor or in any capacity recognised by law, and includes a Hindu undivided family, a firm or a company, an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property." The second contention raised before the Tribunal by the assessee was that the assessee did not either own the estate nor was he holding the property. This contention was negatived by the Tribunal observing thus: "It was next contended that even though the income may be agricultural income, the appellants cannot be made liable for the same, as according to them they do not 'own' the l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....18 of 1965, seeking reference to this court of as many as 9 questions. Two conclusions reached by the Tribunal that the assessee was conducting agricultural operations and that he held the property were also specifically challenged and questions relating to such challenge were also sought to be raised. But the only question that was referred was the one that we have extracted above. On the above facts, the assessee's counsel contended before us that the question referred to us must be answered in favour of the assessee and urged that no agricultural operations had actually been conducted by the assessee and that he did not hold the property and whatever acts he had done on the property were only incidental to those that he had to perform....