1966 (10) TMI 32

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to agricultural income-tax under the Coorg Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "), for the assessment year 1952-53, filed a return showing a loss of Rs. 43,071. The relevant accounting year was the calendar year ending 31st December, 1951. The assessing authority thereupon issued a notice under section 18(2) of the Act in response to which the account books of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... quently, added the amount of Rs. 2,16,000, representing its value, to the agricultural income of the respondent and assessed the tax thereon. The respondent's appeal to the Deputy Commissioner for Agricultural Income-tax failed. The respondent applied to the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax asking for a reference of the following question to the Mysore High Court : " Whether, on the facts .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent of the case and hearing counsel for the parties, the High Court returned the following answer : "All monies realised by the assessee in respect of crops of all description which had already been harvested before the date of sale, viz., 22nd of March, 1951, do not constitute the agricultural income of the assessee within the meaning of the Coorg Agricultural Income-tax Act. The net realisat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o challenge it. The crops of the land, which was purchased by the respondent during the account year in question, it appears, were at two stages. Some of those crops had been harvested, while others were standing. These crops were also purchased. The High Court has already held that the net realisations by the respondent from crops standing at the time of purchase will be included in the agricultu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . The crops, which had already been harvested, were raised and removed from the land by the vendor from whom the respondent purchased these crops. The sale price received by the vendor might have been treated as agricultural income of the vendor who had raised the crops and sold these harvested crops to the respondent. In no case, could this income received by the respondent by sale of harvested c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X