LexTHE DOOARS TEA CO., LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- ..
•
3. S.C.R.
SUPREME· COURT REPORTS
157
of an enlarged meaning the same concept might
~ttract with · the march of time and with the
revolutionary·. changes brought ft bout in
social,
economic, political and scientific
·~ml other fields
of human activity. Indeed, unless a contrary
intention appears, an interpretation should be
given to the words used to take in new fact~ and
situations, if the words are capable of comprehend-
ing them.
We cannot, therefore, agree with the
learned Judges of the High Court that the maxim
contemporanea expositio could be invoked in constrn-
fag the word "telegraph line" in the Act.
For the' said reasons, we hold that the expres.
sion "telegraph line" is sufficiently comprehensive
t.o take in the wires used for the purpose of the
apparatus of the Post and Telegraph Wireless
Station.
In the result, we set aside the order of the
High Court and dismiss the petition filed by the first
respondent. The appeal is allowed, bnt, in tht•
eircumstances of the case, without costs.
Appeal allowed.
THE DOOARS TEA CO., LTD.
'V.
COMMISSIONER OF AGRICUL'TURAL
INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SunnA RAo
and M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.)
Agricultural Income-Agricultural
produce used
for
asses~ee's "'!'n business and not sold in the market-If by itself
constitutes income-Market value-Mode of computation-Bengal
Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944 (IV of 1944), s. 2(1)(b)(I),
Rule 4(2).
The appellant which carried on business of growing
m;tnufacturing and selling tea held a large tract of land o~
which qam!>oos, thatching grass and fuel ti!I!ber were grow!l
'1961
'l'he Sen{or El,ctric
Inspector
v.
Lax mi Narayan
Chopra·
Subba Rao J.
1961
Augml 18.
1981
·~
Tlil DHa-TlJ
Tt-. C'o.1 LtJ.
v.
Comm111ioritr of
Agrict1l:Ural
Inum1~tax,
Wt# Bt1'gal
Gajtn.Jragadkar J.
lGS
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[l962]
by it by agricultural operations through its servants ... and
labourers and the same were utilised for the purpooea of ita tt:a
business and wrre not sold in the market or otherwise. In the
relevant assessment year the _1\gricultural Income-tax Officer
increased the appellant's return by a ccnain sum of money as
representing the market \•aJuc of it~ agricultura] income from
bamboos, thatching grass and fuel timber. The appellant
contended inltr alia that the agricultural produce in question
. -
did not ronstitute agrirultt:ral income under the
llengal
Agriculrural Income-tax Act becausr. the same had not been
sold or converted into money.
Hrld, that under cl.(!) of s.2(1)(b)
of the
Bengal
Agricultural Income-tax Act the agricultural produce utilised
by the asscssec for its O\\'fl business itself constituted income;
no sale v .. ·us contempiate<l thereunder anti it \\'as not required
that the agricultural produce should be sold and profit or gain
recei\'ed frotn such sale.
Alexander 'l'en11ant
'" Rol1ert Suir/air Smith, (1892)
A.C. 150, In re MiCklethwait, 11 Ex. 456 and Sir Kikabhai
Premclmnd '" Commi.Mioner nf lnMme-lax (Ceniral) Bombay,
(1954) S.C.R. 219, referred to.
('011uni8.tlone,· of /11con1e·ta:r v. Sltau·
lrallace & Co.,
( 1932) L.R. 59
I .A. 206, Captain Maharaj Kumar Gopal
.'?aran Flinglt v. Conzmiasio1zer of Inconie-ta.r~ JJiltar and (Jrisaa,
( 1935) L. R. G2 I.A. 207, not applicable.
Rule 4(2) framed under the Act deals with cases where
agricultural produce has been sold outside the market as well
as cases \vhere it has not heen sold at all an<l the income front
~uch agriculruraJ produce may hr computed in the mannrr
prescril~ed tl1rreunder.
Crnr. APPELLATE .Tum~nI<'TTO:> : Civil Appeal
Xo. :l8! of l!luO.
y
1
Appc·al from the judgmont and ordor d'ted
•
ScptcmbC'r 11, l!l5i, of the Calcutta High Court
in RcfcrC'nce No. I 02/l!l;i2.
S. Jlfitm, S. iV. 11luklierjee and B. N. Gho8h, for
Appellant.
R. B. J'al, Asoke Sen and P. K. Bose,
for
rc•Rponrlent.
1001. August 18. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
.-
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.--This appeal by a.oertifi-
cnte arises out of a reference made to the IDgh COurt
,
.• ,
3 S.C.R.
StT.PREME COtJR1' REPORTS • 159
at Calcutta
under s.
63( l)
of th A
Bengal
Agricultural Income-tax Act IV of I ll44 (hereafter
0alled the Act).
The appellant, the Dooars Tett
Co., Ltd., is a public limited company and it carries
-0n business of growing, manufacturing and selling
tea. For the accounting year 1948 which corres·
ponds to the aesessment yeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.