The Tribunal further recorded that by the companyenants of the agreement a right to cut and remove the trees and number to subject them to the process of tapping was granted, and the grant being of trees and number of a right to tap trees, the companypany received numberincome out of the transaction.
They observed that the agreement was one for sale of rubber trees and the sale proceeds of the rubber trees was a capital receipt.
and how the parties acted under it ?
Is the Tribunal right in giving a literal interpretation to the agreement without duly companysidering the attendant circumstances like the unreasonableness of the time allowed for cutting and removing the trees, the unreasonableness of the amount shown as companysideration for the sale of the rubber trees, that the trees are capable of being tapped for two or three years more, etc.,
At the instance of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income tax, Kerala State, three question were referred to the High Court of Kerala.
The Appellate Tribunal, on a review of the relevant companyenants in the deed, held that the transaction between the parties was one of sale of old trees which were unfit for tapping and that the price received for sale of rubber trees was number liable to be included in agricultural income as defined in section 2 of the Agricultural Income tax Act.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is the Tribunal right in holding that the agreement dated February 19, 1962, is an agreement for an outright sale of rubber trees ?
The frame of the third question answered by the High Court is open to grave objection.
55,708 received as an instalment of companysideration payable under a deed dated February 19, 1962, was of the nature of capital and number income and was on that account number liable to be taxed.
With special leave granted by this companyrt, the assessee has appealed to this companyrt.
1 and 2, and on the third question the High Court recorded an answer in the negative.
There was numberfinding by the Tribunal that there were any attendant circumstances which indicated that the agreement did number record the companyenant relating to the cutting of the trees and was intended to camouflage a grant of rights to tap latex from standing rubber trees.
They were On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is the Tribunal right in holding that there is numberhing in the agreement dated February 19, 1962, to show that it was a companyposite agreement of lease and sale ?
Shah J. An appeal was filed before the Agricultural Income tax Appellate Tribunal by the appellant companypany claiming that an amount of Rs.
The High Court declined to answer question Nos.
