1966 (10) TMI 46 - SC - Income Tax

Whether such delivery constituted sale by operation of law as a result of which the assessee ceased to be the owner of the coffee, the moment it handed over the produce to the Coffee Board? Held that - This court held that, under the relevant provisions of the Act, as soon as the producer of coffee handed over the produce to the Coffee Board, it ceased to be the owner and income accrued to him at that point of time. That case does not Jay down the proposition that income accrues to a producer of agricultural produce before the date of disposal, use or sale. For the years 1955-56 and 1956-57, the appellant did not submit returns of income, but applied to compound the tax under section 65 of the Act, and paid the tax determined at the rates specified in Part II of the Act. Therefrom it cannot be inferred that the produce which was sold by him in the year of account to which these appeals relate had suffered tax in the earlier years. It has to be proved that the crop sold by the appellant related to the years in respect of which he had applied to compound the tax and on that part of the case there is no evidence. Appeal dismissed.

Issues:
1. Assessment of agricultural income for a cardamom plantation.
2. Rejection of appellant's explanation regarding accumulated stocks of cardamom.
3. Imposition of penalty under section 20(1)(c) of the Act.
4. Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and subsequent modification of assessment.
5. High Court's revision of the assessment made by the department.
6. Interpretation of the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955.
7. Taxability of agricultural produce under the Act.
8. Comparison with judgments in similar cases.
9. Relevance of previous tax submissions by the appellant.
10. Dismissal of the appeals by the Supreme Court.

Analysis:

The case involved the assessment of agricultural income for a cardamom plantation owned by the appellant for the year 1957-58 under the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. The appellant submitted a return disclosing a net income of Rs. 5,250, but the Agricultural Income-tax Officer found that the appellant had sold cardamom stocks worth Rs. 58,375-9-9. The appellant claimed that the sales represented accumulated stocks from previous years, but this explanation was rejected. The Officer levied a penalty under section 20(1)(c) of the Act, which was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, the Appellate Tribunal modified the assessment, considering the average production of cardamom per acre and allowed expenditure, leading to the setting aside of the penalty.

The State of Madras then approached the High Court, which upheld the department's assessment, stating that even if a part of the stock sold was accumulated from previous years, the appellant failed to provide reliable evidence. The High Court rejected the appellant's argument that income from previous years' sales was not taxable due to earlier tax compounding orders. The High Court's decision was appealed to the Supreme Court.

The appellant argued that agricultural produce itself is income under the Act and becomes taxable when received, not when sold. The Court analyzed the Act's provisions, defining "agricultural income" and emphasizing that income arises upon disposal, consumption, or use of the commodity. Referring to precedents, the Court clarified that income can accrue even without a sale, as long as the produce is used in the business. The appellant's reliance on certain judgments was deemed irrelevant to the case at hand.

The appellant's second argument, regarding previous tax submissions, was dismissed as insufficient to prove that the sold crop had already been taxed in earlier years. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the assessment and penalty, with costs awarded against the appellant.

← Previous Next →