Commissioner of Income Tax vs Rajagiri Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd.

Kochu Thommen, J.—The following questions have been, at the instance of the Revenue, referred to us by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench :

"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the method and manner of valuation of rubber trees adopted by the Tribunal for the purpose of computation of capital gains is factually and legally correct ?

(2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, should not the Tribunal have considered only the wood or firewood content of the tree (on January 1, 1954, and at the time of sale) for determining the value for the purpose of computation of capital gains ?

(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Income Tax on capital gains is exigible on the trees comprised in the rubber estate sold ?"

In the light of our decision in I. T. R. Nos. 111 and 49 of 1981, we answer question No. 1(i) in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

In the light of our answer to question No. (1), question No. (2) does not require to be answered. We decline to answer that question.

In the light of the decision of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alanickal Co. Ltd., , we answer question No. (3) in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in these tax referred cases.

A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.