Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax vs Good Hope Enterprises

K.S. Paripoornan, J.—At the instance of the Revenue, the Agricultural Income tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, "the Tribunal") has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court :

"Is the Tribunal justified in holding that ''motor cars'' in entry III-B(i) of the statement of rule 9 of the Agricultural Income tax Rules, 1951, includes ''jeep''?"

The respondent i.s an assesses to agricultural income tax. It is a registered firm. We are concerned with the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81, for which the accounting periods ended on February 28, 1979, and February 28, 1980, respectively. Among others, the assessee claimed deduction of depreciation on a jeep owned and used by it for agricultural purposes. The Agricultural Income Tax Officer as well as the first appellate authority held that the jeep owned by the assessee will covered by rule 9, Item III " Machinery and Plant" and depreciation is allowable only at the rate of seven per cent. The plen of the assessee was that "jeep" will fall under rule 9, item III-B(i) and depreciation is allowable at twenty per cent. The Tribunal accepted the plea of the assessee and held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the jeep at the same rate provided for motor cars. It is, Thereafter, at [ho instance of the Revenue that the question of law, formulated hereinabove, has been referred for the decision of this court.

We heard counsel. A similar question arose for consideration in this court in Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Vs. Good Hope Plantation, . A Bench of this court held that the expression " motor car" in entry III-B(i) of the statement under rule 9 will lake in "jeep" also for the purpose of deduction u/s 5 of the Kerala Agricultural Income tax Act, 1950. II was held that the expression " molor car " includes "jeep " for the purpose of deduction u/s 5 of the Agricultural Income Tax Act read with rule 9 of the Rules. The above Bench decision squarely applies to the facts of this case. Following the said decision, we hold that the Tribunal was justified in holding that motor cars in entry III-(B)(i) of the statement of rule 9 of the Agricultural Income Tax Rules, 1951, will include "jeep ".

We answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.