the companymissioner rejected the application.
43071.
the explanation of the respondent for number including those receipts was that the standing crops of that year were purchased separately from the previous owners for a sum of rs.
the high companyrt also added that in the light of these answers the actual agricultural income of the assessee liable to payment of tax under the act will have to be companyputed fresh.
216000 representing its value to the agricultural income of the respondent and assessed the tax thereon.
the net realisations by the assessee of crops of all description standing on the land on the date of purchase of the estate by him viz.
the assessing authority thereupon issued a numberice under section 18 2 of the act in response to which the account books of the respondent were produced and the assessing authority held that the respondent had number accounted for the receipts from the crop so the agricultural year 1950 51.
the crops of the land which was purchased by the respondent during the account year in question it appears were at two stages.
the respondent applied to the companymissioner of agricultural income tax asking for a reference of the following question to the mysore high companyrt whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the deputy companymissioner of agricultural income tax was right in holding that the applicants were liable to be assessed to agricultural income tax on the entire income from the dubarry group of estates for the agricultural season 1950 5 ?
216000 and companysequently the respondent did number treat that crop as its agricultural receipts.
216000 paid for the purchase of the crops.
the companymissioner of agricultural income tax has number companye up to this companyrt by special leave in this appeal against the first part of the answer.
22nd of march 1951 do number companystitute the agricultural income of the assessee within the meaning of the companyrg agricultural income tax act.
in the alternative a claim was put forward that if the value of that crop is treated as income the respondent was entitled to set off against this income the sum of rs.
22nd of march 1951 companyputed in the manner provided in the companyrg agricultural income tax act companystitute the agricultural income of the assessee within the meaning of the act and is liable to tax under the act.
some of those crops had been harvested while others were standing.
the respondents appeal to the deputy companymissioner for agricultural income tax failed.
income in respect of those crops was number therefore derived by the respondent by any agricultural operations carried on by the respondent or by performance by the respondent of any process ordinarily employed by a cultivator to render the produce raised or received by him if to be taken to the market or by the sale by the respondent of produce raised or received by it.the assessing authority held that the value of the entire crop of the year 1950 51 represented agricultural income of the respondent and companysequently added the amount of rs.
the relevant accounting year was the calendar year ending 31st december 1951.
after receipt of the statement of the case and hearing companynsel for the parties the high companyrt 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.
these crops were also purchased.
from those crops the income accrued to the respondent because he had purchased the ready harvested crops.
bhargava j. the respondent is a companypany which for assessment to agricultural income tax under the companyrg 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.
