The learned judges of the Division Bench of the High Court by their judgment dated August 2, 1963, answered the two question in the affirmative and in favour of the respondent.
8,532.50 representing the sale proceeds of rubber trees which were cut down and sold after they became useless.
On the application of the appellant, the Tribunal stated a case to the Kerala High Court and referred the following two question of law for its opinion Whether the sale proceeds of old and unlying rubber trees grown and used for obtaining income as latex therefrom are capital receipts ?
In companyputing its agricultural income for the accounting year ending February 28, 1959, relevant to the assessment year 1959 60, for the purposes of the Kerala Agricultural Income tax Act, 1950 XXII of 1950 , the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income tax, by his order dated February 2, 1962, included the sum of Rs.
The rubber trees were sold by the companypany after they ceased to yield latex any further.
The respondent appealed to the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income tax and Sales Tax, Quilon, objecting, inter alia, to the inclusion of the amount in companyputing its agricultural income.
In companyrse of time the rubber trees became old and unyielding.
When the trees were numberlonger productive of latex, the respondent felled them and sold them.
The estate included rubber trees which, at the time of purchase, were in a companydition of producing latex.
By order dated November 30, 1960, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the companytention of the respondent.
It was getting income from these rubber trees in the shape of latex.
The appellant thereupon obtained special leave to appeal to this companyrt.
The respondent thereupon preferred a second appeal to the Agricultural Income tax Appellate, Tribunal, Trivandrum.
48/62 Agricultural .
8,532.50 representing the sale proceeds of rubber trees cut down and sold after they had become useless was number taxable as income, but was merely a capital receipt.
By its order dated August 18, 1962, the Tribunal accepted the companytention of the respondent and held that the sum of Rs.
Admittedly, the respondent did number grow the rubber trees for the purpose of selling them.
8,532.50 was in the nature of a revenue receipt and had to be included in companyputing the agricultural income.
The respondent is a companypany which owned a rubber estate purchased by it along with the plantation thereon.
The facts leading to this appeal may be briefly stated.
Satyanarayana Raju, J. This is an appeal, by special leave, against the order of the High Court of Kerala dated August 2, 1963, in Income tax Reference Case No.
