1978 (11) TMI 29 - HC - Income Tax

Accounting Year, Actual Cost, Agricultural Income Tax Act, Income Tax Rules, Market Value, Previous Year, Written Down Value

Issues Involved:

1. Method of computing total agricultural income based on sugarcane crushed.
2. Correct method for apportionment of income on a time basis.
3. Determination of whether expenditure was laid out wholly and exclusively for deriving agricultural income.
4. Acceptance of determinations made by the Income-tax Officer for common charges.
5. Basis for claiming depreciation on assets.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Method of Computing Total Agricultural Income Based on Sugarcane Crushed:

The Tribunal was justified in holding that the method adopted by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer (AITO) for computing the respondents' total agricultural income was incorrect. The AITO's method involved calculating the average income per ton of sugarcane crushed during the respondents' two accounting years and then applying this average to the tonnage crushed during the previous year. The court found that this method erroneously included income and expenses from periods outside the previous year. The correct method should involve taking the market value of the sugarcane crushed during the previous year as determined by the ITO in the income-tax assessments, adding other agricultural income, and deducting the permissible allowances under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1962.

2. Correct Method for Apportionment of Income on a Time Basis:

The Tribunal was not justified in holding that income should be apportioned on a time basis assuming that agricultural activities commence from the stage of land preparation. The court clarified that the correct method is to take the market value of sugarcane crushed during the previous year, add other agricultural income, and deduct allowances for expenses incurred during the previous year. The Act taxes the total agricultural income derived and received in the previous year, not proportionate income based on time.

3. Determination of Whether Expenditure Was Laid Out Wholly and Exclusively for Deriving Agricultural Income:

The Tribunal was justified in concluding that the expenditure in question was laid out wholly and exclusively for deriving agricultural income. The AITO was not permitted to re-determine whether any part of the expenditure, which had been held by the ITO as a common charge, was indeed a common charge. If the expenditure fell within the ambit of Section 8 of the Act, the AITO was bound to allow it. The court upheld that all items of expenditure claimed were laid out wholly and exclusively for deriving agricultural income, in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Purtabpore Company Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

4. Acceptance of Determinations Made by the Income-tax Officer for Common Charges:

The Tribunal correctly held that whenever there was a common charge, the determination made by the Income-tax Officer must be accepted by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for allowing the expenditure under clause (b) of the proviso to section 9 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1962. The AITO must accept the ITO's determination of the market value and common charges to avoid conflicting decisions and harassment to the assessee.

5. Basis for Claiming Depreciation on Assets:

The Tribunal was justified in holding that the respondents were entitled to claim depreciation based on the cost price of their assets within the meaning of sub-section (6) of section 8 read with clause (16) of section 2 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1962, and rule 3 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1962, and not on the basis of cost price less depreciation allowable under the said Act. The court rejected the department's argument that depreciation should be calculated by notionally taking into account the existence of the Act during the period it was not in force. The court emphasized that the Act should not be given retrospective effect unless clearly intended by the legislature.

Conclusion:

In the result, the court answered the questions as follows:

1. The Tribunal was justified in holding the method adopted by the AITO was incorrect, but the reasons given by the Tribunal were erroneous.
2. The Tribunal was not justified in holding that income should be apportioned on a time basis.
3. The Tribunal was justified in concluding that the expenditure was laid out wholly and exclusively for deriving agricultural income.
4. The Tribunal correctly held that determinations made by the ITO for common charges must be accepted by the AITO.
5. The Tribunal was justified in holding that depreciation should be claimed based on the cost price of assets.

Each party was ordered to bear its own costs of the reference.

← Previous Next →