1965 (12) TMI 34 - SC - Income Tax

Whether the source of the amounts was the production or the export of the rubber itself by the owners of the plantations and as the amount was paid back to the producers it was only a trading receipt? Held that - The amounts from the fund earmarked for the appellants on the basis of the rubber produced by them were paid against the expenditure incurred by them for maintaining the rubber plantation and producing the rubber. If so, it follows that the receipts by the assessees during the accounting year were revenue receipts and, therefore, liable to be included in their assessable income. We therefore hold, though for different reasons, that the High Court has rightly answered the questions against the assessees. The appeals fail, and are dismissed with costs.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the re-plantation cess receipts are capital or revenue receipts.
2. The nature of the payments made to the appellants under the Rubber Industry (Re-planting) Fund Ordinance, 1952.
3. The basis on which the payments were made from the fund to the assessees.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the re-plantation cess receipts are capital or revenue receipts:
The primary question in these appeals is whether the re-plantation cess receipts received by the appellants are to be treated as capital receipts or revenue receipts. The appellants claimed these amounts as capital receipts, arguing that the payments were made to encourage planting or re-planting of high-yielding rubber trees. Conversely, the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner treated these amounts as revenue receipts, stating that the payments were made to cover the re-planting expenses of the assessees.

2. The nature of the payments made to the appellants under the Rubber Industry (Re-planting) Fund Ordinance, 1952:
The Ordinance was enacted to provide for the collection of a cess on the production and export of rubber, and the establishment of a fund to be administered by a Board. The funds collected were divided into two categories: (1) cess collected on rubber produced in Penang and rubber exported from the Federation other than Penang, and (2) customs duties and excise or other duties declared by the High Commissioner in Council. The funds were further divided into Fund A and Fund B based on the area of the rubber plantations. The payments were made to the appellants against expenditure incurred on the maintenance of the plantations.

3. The basis on which the payments were made from the fund to the assessees:
The High Court held that the source of the amounts was the production or export of rubber by the owners of the plantations. The amounts were paid against the expenditure incurred by the appellants for maintaining the rubber plantations. The Tribunal recorded that the payments were based on the production of rubber and not on actual expenses incurred by the assessees. The High Court concluded that the payments were revenue receipts, as they were correlated to the production of rubber, and the condition that the sums should be paid against the expenditure for replanting did not affect the nature of the receipt.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, holding that the amounts received by the appellants were revenue receipts and therefore liable to be included in their assessable income. The Court reasoned that the payments were made against the expenditure incurred for maintaining the rubber plantations and producing the rubber. The appeals were dismissed with costs.

← Previous Next →