9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (6) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rees to third parties. During the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1979-80, the assessee received a sum of Rs. 1,86,395 under the aforesaid agreements. The assessee treated the receipts as capital receipts. The assessing authority, however, held that the consideration received under the agreements related to sale value of rubber trees as well as income from slaughter-tapping. According to him, two-thirds of the consideration received during the year should be treated as representing income from slaughter-tapping. It was included in the agricultural income for the year and assessed to tax under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. The order of assessment is dated October 27, 1980. It was confirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trees as income. We heard counsel for the assessee and also counsel for respondent, Senior Government Pleader, Shri V. C. James. Annexure-A to the paper book is one of the agreements dated March 15, 1976. it is common ground that the other agreements dated April 30, 1976, and April 20, 1977, are similar in import. Clause 5 of the agreement available at page 9 is to the following effect : "The purchasers shall not have the right to assign the benefits under this contract or to resell any of the said rubber -trees while the same remains on the said estate and no persons, advancing any claim from or through the purchasers or any of them shall have any right to enter on the said estate." According to the Appellate Tribunal, the benefits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment by the Appellate Tribunal is totally fallacious. So also the approach to the question is a clear error and from a wrong perspective. Clause 5 only states that the purchasers shall not have the right to assign the benefits under the contract or to resell any of the said rubber trees. There is no indication whatsoever in the said clause about "other benefits" which the Tribunal has wrongly assumed. It is only the benefits under the contract. On what basis the Tribunal surmised that, in circumstances like this, the benefits invariably mean the right for slaughter-tapping is anybody's guess. We are of the view that clause 5 has been misread by the Appellate Tribunal. Firstly, the term "other benefits" does not occur therein as assumed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n including examination of the purchasers or, other persons and ascertain whether slaughter-tap- ping was in fact effected. No such attempt was made. The very fact that the assessee had taken a stand before the Central income-tax authorities that a portion of the amount received is agricultural in nature is of no consequence. So considering the order of the Appellate Tribunal as a whole, we are left with the impression that the Appellate Tribunal surmised that the consideration received as per the agreement was for slaughter-tapping as well as cutting and removal of trees. There was no material to say so. In this state of affairs, the Appellate Tribunal should have held that the sum of Rs. 1,86,395 received under the agreement in question w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
