9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules, 1962, could be allowed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer under the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939 and the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1939, provided the said portion of the claim relates to plantation, manufacture and sale of tea". For answering the question posed in the present writ petition, it would be apposite to make a short resume of the relevant provisions of (i) the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939, (ii) the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1939, (iii) the Income-tax Act, 1961, and (iv) the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The concise facts which should be sufficient for answering the above question posed in the present writ petitions are that the assessee/writ petitioner is a company incorporated in India under the provision of the Companies Act, 1956, in compliance with the requirement under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, having 13 tea estates in Upper Assam engaged in the business of harvesting tea leaves, manufacture of black tea and the marketing of the produce. For the assessment year 1981-82, for which Civil Rule No. 6135 of 1998 is filed, the Income-tax Department had assessed the writ petitioner and the assessment orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the revisions so far as they related to the assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81 were time barred. The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated March 1, 1990, passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Guwahati preferred an appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue and it has been registered as case No. 5AITA/90. But the learned Revenue Board after hearing the parties vide impugned judgment and order dated March 31, 1998, rejected the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner. The petitioner filed Civil Rule No. 6135 of 1998 assailing the impugned judgment and order dated March 1, 1990, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes and also the impugned judgment and order dated March 31, 1998, passed by the learned Board of Revenue. Civil Rule No. 6136 of 1998 is concerned with the two assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer passed the assessment order dated November 5, 1986, for the assessment year 1982-83 and the assessment order dated July 13, 1987, for the assessment year 1983-84. The writ petitioner preferred an appeal against the said two assessment orders before the Assistant Commissioner of Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s relating to Indian income-tax." "Agricultural income-tax" means the tax payable under the Act 1939 according to section 2(b) of the Act, i.e., 1939. Determination of the agricultural income is to be made under section 8 of the Act, 1939. The relevant portion of section 8 of the Act, 1939 is quoted hereunder- "8. Determination of agricultural income mentioned in sub-clause (2) of clause (a) of section 2.-... (2) Rules prescribing the manner of determining the net amounts of agricultural income for the purpose of this clause shall provide that the following deductions shall be made from the gross amounts of such income, namely:-... (vii) any expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning or deriving the agricultural income; provided that such expenditure, if laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning income chargeable to tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) would have been admissible for deduction under that Act;... Provided always that no deduction shall be made under this clause, if it has already been made under section 7 of this Act or in the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome-tax Officer:..." Rule 8 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962: "8. (1) Income derived from the sale of tea grown and manufactured by the seller in India shall be computed as if it were income derived from business, and forty per cent. of such income shall be deemed to be income liable to tax. (2) In computing such income an allowance shall be made in respect of the cost of planting bushes in replacement of bushes that have died or become permanently useless in an area already planted, if such area has not previously been abandoned, and for the purpose of determining such cost, no deduction shall be made in respect of the amount of any subsidy which, under the provisions of clause (30) of section 10, is not includible in the total income." Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in order to answer the question posed in the present writ petition in favour of the writ petitioner by confirming the judgment and order of the learned Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) dated April 24, 1986, in respect of C.R. No. 6135 of 1998 and the order dated November 21, 1988, in respect of C.R. No. 6136 of 1998 had strenuously submitted that the second p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been allowed in computation for the Indian Income-tax Act...." From the bare perusal of the second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 8 of the Act, 1939 and rule 5 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1939, it is crystal clear that whatever amount spent is disallowed by the Income-tax Officer can be allowed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer in case it relates to plantation, manufacture and sale of tea. This court (not only once but twice) in the case of George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) [1997] 223 ITR 468; [1997] 3 GLT 178 and in the case of Williamson Magor and Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [2000] 244 ITR 291 (Gauhati); [2001] 1 GLT 112 had answered the question posed in the present writ petition in the affirmative. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment in George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) [1997] 223 ITR 468; [1997] 3 GLT 178 reads as follows: "13. From a reading of these provisions of the Act and the Rules, in our opinion, expenses incurred for the purpose of earning agricultural income after giving allowable deductions by the Income-tax Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome-tax Act and the rules framed thereunder and forty per cent. of the income so computed is deemed to be income derived from business and assessable to non-agricultural income-tax. The Explanation to section 2(a)(2) of the Act of 1939, adopts this rule of computation and the balance sixty per cent. of the income so computed is agricultural income within the meaning of the Agricultural Income-tax Act of 1939 [section 2(b) of the Act of 1939]. The agricultural income taxable under the Act of 1939, is sixty per cent. of the income so computed after deducting therefrom the allowances admissible under the Act in so far as the same has not been allowed in the assessment under the Central Income-tax Act. Accordingly, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer has no other option in making the assessment of the agricultural income, but to accept the computation of the audited income already made by the Central income-tax authorities and assess only sixty per cent. of the income so computed less the allowable deductions as agricultural income taxable under the State Act. Under the State Act, expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure) undertaken or expended wholly and exclusive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ust ordinarily be construed according to their plain meaning and no words should be added, altered or modified unless it is plainly necessary to do so to prevent a provision from being unintelligible, absurd, unreasonable, unworkable or totally irreconcilable with the rest of the statute. Paragraphs 24 and 25 of the Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill P. Ltd. [2003] 2 SCC 111 read as follows: "24. True meaning of a provision of law has to be determined on the basis of what it provides by its clear language, with due regard to the scheme of law. 25. Scope of the legislation on the intention of the Legislature cannot be enlarged when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. In other words statutory enactments must ordinarily be construed according to its plain meaning and no words shall be added, altered or modified unless it is plainly necessary to do so to prevent a provision from being unintelligible, absurd, unreasonable, unworkable or totally irreconcilable with the rest of the statute." It is well-settled that when the Legislature has spoken the judge cannot afford to be wiser (Mandir Sita Ramji v. Governor of Delhi [1974] AIR 1974 SC 1868). For t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
