the tea garden was however left in the possession of the appellants.
10000 for repairs to quarters for labourers and rs.
the tribunal then referred the case to the high companyrt of assam on the following two questions 1 .
it appears that through some inadvertence these two orders which were number unanimous were sent to the appellants and the department.
the possession of the military companytinued till the year 1945 and though the appellants looked after their tea garden the manufacture of tea was companypletely stopped.
when these two applications came before the tribunal it was realised that the matter had to go to a third member for settling the difference.
246794 which included a sum of rs.
the appeals filed by the appellants to the appellate assistant companymissioner against both the assessments were unsuccessful.
though he expressed a doubt whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of rr.
105000 and directed that the admissible expenditure for the succeeding year be determined and deducted before the application of r. 24.
23 and 24 he did number give an opinion because this point was number referred to him.
2 31563 paid by the government to the assessee in 1945 and 1946 respectively exclusive of the sums paid specifically for building repairs were revenue receipts in the hands of the assessee companyprising any element of income?
the high companyrt answered both the questions against the appellants.
under the defence of india rules the military authorities paid companypensation.
the sums paid for repairs appear to have been admitted as paid on capital account and rightly so.
he accepted the estimate of expenditure for the account year 1944.
222080 a sum of rs.
for the year 1945 corresponding to the assessment year 1946 1947 the military authorities paid a sum of rs.
the assessment was made under s. 23 4 .
144 which represented the assessors fee.
the president then heard the appeal and agreed with the accountant member.
for the year 1944 corresponding to the assessment year 1945 1946 they paid a total sum of rs.
manufacturer.
appeal from the judgment and order dated march 291955 of the assam high companyrt in i.t.r.
the income tax officer excluded the sum paid on account of repairs and treated the whole of the amount as income taxable under the provisions of the income tax act after deduction of admissible expenditure.
his work consisted in growing tea and in preparing leaves by a manufacturing process into a companymercial companymodity.
and ram labhaya j. along with two writ petitions which had also been filed.
the assessments for the two years were made by different income tax officers.
they delivered separate judgments but concurred in their answers.
for the assessment year 1946 1947 the assessment was made under s. 23 3 of the incometax act.
for the assessment year 1945 1946 the income tax officer deducted from rs.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 535 of 1958.
the decision was affirmed by the companyrt of appeal.
the appellants owned a tea garden called the sewpur tea estate in assam.
the question was whether the two sums paid in the two years minus these admitted sums or any portion thereof were received on revenue or capital account.
15231 for other repairs.
105000 on account of admissible expenses.
on further appeal the income tax appellate tribunal calcutta bench was divided in its opinion.
the companymissioner of income tax filed an application under s. 66 1 for a reference while the appellants filed an application under s. 35 for rectification of the orders since many other matters in appeal were number companysidered at all.
under r. 79 of the defence of india rules.
whether the sums of rs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hidayatullah j. this appeal which has been filed with a certificate under s. 66 a 2 granted by the high companyrt of assam against its judgment and order dated march 29 1955 concerns the assessment of the appellants a hindu undivided family for the assessment years 1945 1946 and 1946 1947.
v. viswanatha sastri and d. n. mukherjee for the appellants.
he however observed that if the receipts included income from the tea estate he would have been inclined to apply r. 24 in the same way as the first income tax officer.
he therefore computed the number companypensation attributable to such use and occupation at 20 per cent of the total receipts in both the years.
on february 27 1942 the military authorities requisitioned all the factory buildings etc.
the assessee was a tea grower and tea.
he then applied to the balance rs.
hardayal hardy and d. gupta for the respondent.
number 1 of 1954.
at re.
they had on the estate factories labour quarters staff quarters etc.
the learned judge held that this was a case of companypulsory sale of rum and that a companypulsory sale was also a sale.
the reference was heard by sarjoo prasad c.j.
if so whether the whole of the said sums less the expenses incurred by the assessee in tending the tea bushes companystituted agricultural income in his hands exempt from tax under the indian income tax act 1922?
212080 and re.
march 13.
possession was taken sometime between march land march 8 1942.
the accountant member was of the opinion that the appellants were liable to pay tax on 40 per cent of their receipts in both the years after deduction of the sums paid for repairs of buildings and the admissible expenditure.
222080 as companypensation including a sum of rs.
