AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.N. Baruah, J.—All the above civil rules involve common questions of law and fact, therefore, I propose to dispose of these cases by a common judgment.
In all the above civil rules, the petitioners have challenged the common order dated November 22, 1989, annexure-3 to the petitions, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, Guwahati, dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner-company for the assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83 and confirming the order dated December 9, 1986, passed by the Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Assam, Guwahati, disallowing the exemption claimed by the petitioner on certain expenditure.
The facts, for the purpose of disposal of these cases, may be stated as follows :
The above civil rules are in connection with the assessment of agricultural income for the assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. The petitioners claimed exemption for the expenses incurred on payment of salary paid to the employees of the tea garden engaged in the operation and manufacture of tea, i.e., Rs. 61,587 in C. R. No. 1371 of 1990, Rs. 3,906 in C. R. No. 1372 of 1990 and Rs. 1,587 in C. R. No. 1373 of 1990 ; transit accommodation, i.e., Rs. 9,882 in C. R. No. 1371 of 1990, Rs. 6,070 in C. R. No. 1372 of 1990 and Rs. 6,433 in C. R. No. 1373 of 1990 and travelling expenses of Rs. 53,350 in C. R. No. 1371 of 1990, Rs. 53,350 in C. R. No. 1372 of 1990 and Rs. 28,042 in C. R. No. 1373 of 1990 and disallowance of legal expenses of Rs. 5,100 in C. R. No. 1372 of 1990 and Rs. 4,200 in C. R. No. 1373 of 1990. According to the petitioner, the expenditures were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning or deriving agricultural income. While making the assessment, the Income Tax Officer under the Agricultural Income Tax Act disallowed the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals), Tinsukia. The Assistant Commissioner of Taxes allowed the claim of the petitioner on account of donation but dismissed the appeal disallowing the expenditure claimed u/s 8(2)(f)(vii) of the Act. The petitioner being aggrieved filed a revision application before the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, Guwahati. The Commissioner of Taxes by a common order dated November 22, 1989, dismissed the revision application and held thus :
"In my view, once the claims for deduction are considered and allowed under the Income Tax Act, albeit in part, the learned Agricultural Income Tax Officer has no right or authority to consider afresh the claim for deductions and any such reconsideration of any claim, once considered and allowed either in whole or part by the Income Tax Officer under the Income Tax Act will violate the provisions of the Income Tax Act and be contrary to the proviso to Rule 5 of the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Rules. Once the income is determined under the Income Tax Act, the Agricultural Income Tax Officer has no authority to alter the same or refuse to accept the computation of the Income Tax Officer.
Under the circumstances, I do not find any justification to uphold the petitioner''s claim and consequently reject the same.
In the result, the revisions fail and are dismissed. The Agricultural Income Tax Officer will, however, revise the assessment orders for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 in the light of the revised assessment made u/s 251 of the Income Tax Act on receipt of the certified copies of such assessment orders from the petitioner-company."
According to the petitioner, the respondents totally ignored the various provisions of the Act and illegally and arbitrarily disallowed the expenditure claimed u/s 8(2)(f)(vii) of the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1939. Hence, the present petition.
I have heard Dr. A.K. Saraf, counsel for the petitioner, and Dr. B.P. Todi, Government Advocate, Assam, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
Dr. Saraf submits that the respondents are totally misguided while determining as to whether the exemption should be granted as claimed or not. The Income Tax Officer disallowed the claim without assigning any reason. He further submits that the Income Tax Officer disallowed the claim of the petitioner in respect of the expenses claimed and computed the agricultural income as per the order of assessment of income passed by the Income Tax Officer and this cannot be a ground for disallowing the claim of the petitioner. He further submits that the claim was made in respect of 60 per cent of income which falls under the Agricultural Income Tax Act, therefore, the assessee is entitled to get exemption. The Agricultural Income Tax Officer is only required to see whether the claim for exemption is outside the prohibition referred to in Section 8(2) of the Income Tax Act. However, the authorities brushed aside the claim without considering those aspects of the matter.
Dr. Todi, on the other hand, supports the impugned orders. According to him, the Income Tax Officer having disallowed the claim after consideration, the Agricultural Income Tax Officer has no option but to refuse it on the ground that the Central assessing authority might have found that this amount was not actually incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning agricultural income.
On the rival contentions of the parties, it is to be seen whether the claim of exemption of the petitioner can be justified or not.
To appreciate the position it will be apposite to look to the provisions of Section 8(2)(f)(vii) of the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act. I quote the relevant portion hereunder :
"8. (2)(f)(vii) any expenditure not being in the nature of capital expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning or deriving the agricultural income ; . . . :
Provided always that no deduction shall be made under this clause, if it has already been made u/s 7 of this Act or in the assessment under the Indian Income Tax Act :
Provided further that in cases of agricultural income from cultivation and manufacture of tea the agricultural income for the purposes of this Act shall be deemed to be that portion of the income from cultivation, manufacture and sale which is agricultural income within the meaning of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922), and shall be ascertained by computing the income from the cultivation, manufacture and sale of tea as computed for Indian Income Tax from which shall be deducted any allowance by this Act authorised in so far as the same shall not have been allowed in the computation for the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922."
From a plain reading of the section quoted above, it appears that while considering the claim for exemption, the Agricultural Income Tax Officer is required to see whether the expenditure is laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning or deriving agricultural income and to see whether in respect of the said amount the Income Tax authority or the Central assessing authority has already granted exemption. If the claim is made outside the restrictions imposed under the provisions quoted above, then the petitioner is entitled to get tax exemption. Therefore, it is necessary for the Income Tax assessing authority to consider whether the exemption is claimed in respect of the amount laid out as expenditure wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning or deriving the agricultural income. If the amount of the exemption claimed is not wholly and exclusively used for the purpose of earning or deriving agricultural income then in that case exemption cannot be allowed.
The apex court while dealing with a similar matter in connection with the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, held that for the purpose of deriving agricultural income in Section 5(j) of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950, did not mean anything very different from the words used in Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the allowance of business expenses, and the principles applicable to the interpretation of Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, will also apply to Section 5(j) of the Kerala Act. In that case, the question was whether the amounts expended for maintaining accounts and getting them audited and expenditure incurred for the purpose of preparing a return of agricultural income under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act was deductible or not. The Supreme Court held that the amounts expended by the appellant by way of charges paid to auditors for the purpose of preparing his returns of agricultural income under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950, were allowable expenditure u/s 5(j) of that Act in computing his agricultural income.
In the present case, the contention of the petitioner is that the expenditures are incurred in connection with salary paid to the employees of the tea garden engaged in the operation and manufacture of tea and transit accommodation. Now it is to be seen whether such expenditures were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning or deriving agricultural income and these can be exempted. Dr. Todi very fairly submits that at least from the records it does not appear that the exemptions claimed were not for the operation and manufacture of tea, etc.
From the impugned judgments and orders, I do not find that the Income Tax Officer or the appellate authority scrutinised this aspect of the matter and came to a definite finding. Under the provisions of Section 8(2)(f)(vii) of the Act, it is the duty of the Agricultural Income Tax Officer to see whether the exemption claimed conies within the restriction mentioned in the said section. However, I do not find that any endeavour was made by the Department before arriving at a conclusion. Therefore, in my opinion, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned orders of assessment. However, the Department may reassess the income for the years 1980-81 to 1982-83 strictly in accordance with the provisions of law and in the light of the decision of the apex court and the observations made hereinbefore.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.