9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (11) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the rubber replantation subsidy is income assessable to income-tax ? The High Court has answered all the three questions in favour of the department. 2. In conformity with the decision of the High Court, we hold that the assessee is not entitled to the deduction of Rs. 34,201 being the fee paid for valuing the estates. 3. With regard to question No. 3, i.e., whether the rubber replantation subsidy is income assessable to tax, the assessee had made certain further submissions. It was submitted that on this point the assessee had raised certain alternative submissions before the lower authorities. The Tribunal should, according to the assessee, give a finding on these submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant is aggrieved against this. The subsidy has been given by the Rubber Board to the appellant for meeting part of the expenditure incurred by the appellant on replantation of old rubber estates with new trees. The expenditure on replanting rubber trees is not an item allowed as a deduction in computing the income taxable under the Income-tax Act. Therefore, it would appear that a subsidy granted for meeting this amount cannot be treated as an income for the purpose of Income-tax Act. The subsidy at best may be considered as going in to reduce expenditure incurred by the assessee. In this view of the matter I hold that the amount is not liable to be included in the total income. The addition is deleted. " It will be seen that he has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ...Subsidy will be granted for replanting low yielding uneconomic rubber trees planted in or prior to 1962 and registered with the Board. ' Referring to the Scheme, the Commissioner says: '....The replacement has to be by better yielding rubber trees, in place of older and low yielding trees planted prior to 1962. The subsidy is granted in seven yearly instalments. . . .' It is in fact the common case that subsidy was paid to and received by the assessee for replantation, upkeep and maintenance of the rubber trees until they become mature. " Thus, it will be seen that the High Court was asked to decide only whether the receipt is capital or revenue. The High Court gave a finding that it is revenue in nature. Thus, the question whether i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of the High Court, the Tribunal does not lose its authority to decide any issue left undecided in its earlier order. Such issues can be decided by the Tribunal without any direction of the High Court. Thus, there is ample authority to show that a point not considered while disposing of the appeal has to be considered again. 8. Now, the assessee had taken the point that the receipt is agricultural in nature before the CIT (A). The CIT (A) had not given any clear finding thereon. However, he decided, the appeal in favour of the assessee on other grounds. It was the department which had come on appeal. Insofar as the ground taken by the assessee before the CIT (A) had not been disposed of by him, it can be taken that the ground was decide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
