The appellants have rubber plantations and in the accounting year 1950, companyresponding to the assessment year 1951 52, the appellants had under cultivation 3558 84 acres out of which 334 64 acres had immature rubber trees growing and the rest i.e. 3224 20 acres mature rubber yielding trees under cultivation.
In that year a sum of Rs.
19 of 1955.
In that case, however, the Agricultural Income tax Tribunal rejected the appellants claim and disallowed the expenditure.
59,271.9 5 was the expenditure incurred for the upkeep and maintenance of immature portion of the rubber estate.
In Agricultural Income tax Reference No.
19,056 0 9, which was expended for the upkeep and maintenance of immature portion of the rubber plantation, was allowed by the Agricultural Income tax Tribunal and at the instance of the respondent a reference was made to the High Court under s. 60 1 of the Agricultural Income tax Act Act XXII of 1950 hereinafter termed the Act and that was reference No.
a total area of 3426,55 acres of which 3091.91acres were mature rubber yielding trees and 334.64 acres had immature rubber trees.
In that year a sum of Rs.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 6, 1957, of the Kerala High Court in Agricultural Income tax Referred Cases Nos.
In all the references the questions were answered in the negative and against the appellant.
42,660,4 1.
15, 18 and 19 of 1955.
The appeals relate to three accounting years 1950, 1951 and 1952 assessment years 1951 52, 1952 53 and 1953 54 .
290 to 292 of 1959.
18 of 1955.
15 of 1955 which related to, accounting year 1952 and the assessment year 1953 54, the area under cultivation was 3453,65 out of which 2967,91 acres had mature rubber yielding trees and 485,74 acres had immature rubber growing trees.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
December 15.
That sum was allowed by the Agricultural Income tax Tribunal and at the instance of the respondent a reference was made under s. 60 1 of the Act to the High Court and that was reference No.
At the instance of the appellant a case was stated to the High Court under s. 60 1 of the Act and was answered in the negative and against the appellant.
and in the other two the question referred was Whether the expenses incurred for the mainte nance and upkeep of immature rubber trees companystitute a permissible deduction within the meaning of s. 5 j of Act XXII of 1950?
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, Thomas Vellapally and M. R. K. Pillai, for the appellants in all the appeals Sardar Bahadur, for the respondents.
42,660 4 1 expended by the assessee in the relevant accounting year 1952, under this head may be deducted.
In the first reference the question raised was Whether under the Travancore Cochin Agricul tural Income Tax Act, 1950 in calculating the assessable agricultural income of a rubber estate already planted and companytaining both mature yielding rubber trees and also immature rubber plants which have number companye into bearing, the annual expenses incurred for the upkeep and maintenance of such rubber plants, are number a permissible deduction, and if so, whether the sum of Rs.
During the accounting year 1951 companyresponding to the assessment year 1952 53 the appellant had under cultivation.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR, J. These three appeals are brought by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala and arise out of a companymon judgment of that companyrt given in three Agricultural Income tax References Nos.
15, 18 and 19 of 1955.
