Kerala H.C : The appeal filed before the CIT (A) and the second appeal filed before the Tribunal were futile. Thereafter, the petitioner/assessee filed an application under s. 256(1) of the IT Act praying that the Tribunal may be pleased to refer the three questions of law formulated in para 4 of the original petition for the decision of this Court.

High Court Of Kerala

Gokul Rubber & Tea Plantations Ltd. vs. CIT

Sections 256(2), 45(1), 2(14)

Asst. Year 1978-79

K.S. Paripoornan & K. Sreedharan, JJ.

O.P. No. 7381 of 1984

24th June, 1987

Counsel Appeared

P. Radhakrishnan & M.M. Mathew, for the Assessee : P.K. Ravindranatha Menon & N.R.K. Nair, for the Revenue

K.S. PARIPOORNAN, J.:

The petitioner is a company. For the asst. yr. 1978-79, it was assessed on an amount of Rs. 23,600 under the head ” Capital gains ” on the sale of rubber trees cut and sold by it. The plea of the assessee that the rubber trees are agricultural assets and cannot be considered as capital asset was negatived. The appeal filed before the CIT (A) and the second appeal filed before the Tribunal were futile. Thereafter, the petitioner/assessee filed an application under s. 256(1) of the IT Act praying that the Tribunal may be pleased to refer the three questions of law formulated in para 4 of the original petition for the decision of this Court. It was rejected. Thereafter, this petition under s. 256(2) of the Act was filed in this Court.

We heard counsel for the petitioner as also counsel for the Revenue. The old and unyielding rubber trees will certainly be a capital asset and for sale thereof, tax on capital gains can be levied thereon, cannot admit of any doubt in view of the decisions in Commr. of Agrl. IT vs. Kailas Rubber & Co. Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 435 (SC), Beverley Estates Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 117 ITR 302 (Mad) and Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1974) 93 ITR 314 (Ker). By relying on the said decisions, the Tribunal held that the amounts received on the sale of rubber trees, cut and sold by the assessee/petitioner is liable to tax as capital gains. The decision of the Tribunal is justified in law. The matter is settled by a series of decisions of this Court. In the circumstances, we are of the view that no referable question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal.

There is no merit in this original petition. It is dismissed.

[Citation : 172 ITR 197]

Malcare WordPress Security