1997 (7) TMI 12 - SC - Income Tax

Computation of income - Income which is partially agricultural & partially from business - assessee-company, is a manufacturer of sugar which purchases sugarcane from the market for crushing. It also has its own cane fields where it cultivates sugarcane which is entirely consumed by its factory - held price of sugarcane grown in its own fields had to be computed u/r 7(2)(a) - assessee s prayer is for a direction to the Tribunal to consider new questions of fact, is not acceptable

Issues Involved:
1. Computation of income attributable to agricultural activities versus non-agricultural activities for tax purposes.
2. Determination of "market value" of agricultural produce under Rule 7 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
3. Applicability of Rule 7(2)(a) versus Rule 7(2)(b) in valuing sugarcane produced and consumed by the assessee.
4. Impact of the Sugarcane Control Order on market value determination.
5. Role of the Tribunal and the High Court in fact-finding and legal interpretation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Computation of income attributable to agricultural activities versus non-agricultural activities for tax purposes:
The assessee-company, a sugar manufacturer, earns income from both agricultural (cultivating sugarcane) and manufacturing activities. Under Section 10(1) of the Income-tax Act, agricultural income is exempt from tax, while non-agricultural income is taxable. The challenge lies in accurately computing the income attributable to agricultural activities to exclude it from taxable income.

2. Determination of "market value" of agricultural produce under Rule 7 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962:
Rule 7(1) mandates that the market value of agricultural produce used as raw material in business must be deducted from business income. Rule 7(2) provides methods for determining this market value. Clause (a) applies if the produce is ordinarily sold in the market, using the average market price. Clause (b) applies if the produce is not ordinarily sold, using the cost of cultivation plus a reasonable profit.

3. Applicability of Rule 7(2)(a) versus Rule 7(2)(b) in valuing sugarcane produced and consumed by the assessee:
The assessee argued for the application of Rule 7(2)(b), claiming sugarcane was not ordinarily sold in the market due to the Sugarcane Control Order. The Revenue contended for Rule 7(2)(a), asserting that sugarcane had a market price despite the Control Order. The Tribunal sided with the assessee, but the High Court disagreed, noting that sugarcane was sold in the market even with the Control Order in place.

4. Impact of the Sugarcane Control Order on market value determination:
The High Court emphasized that the Sugarcane Control Order regulated the market but did not eliminate it. Sugarcane continued to be sold in the market, and the controlled price was considered the market price. The court rejected the notion that government regulation nullified the market status of sugarcane.

5. Role of the Tribunal and the High Court in fact-finding and legal interpretation:
The Tribunal found that sugarcane was not ordinarily sold in the market, supporting the assessee's stance. The High Court, however, pointed out that the Tribunal did not establish this as a fact. The High Court ruled that the market value should be computed under Rule 7(2)(a) based on the controlled price. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming the controlled price as the market price and dismissing the appeals.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the market value of sugarcane should be determined under Rule 7(2)(a) using the controlled price, as sugarcane was ordinarily sold in the market despite the Sugarcane Control Order. The court also emphasized that the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority, and new factual questions cannot be raised at the reference stage.

← Previous Next →