TMI Blog1957 (8) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e material facts are follow: In the accounting year 1358 B.S., the assessee, Manmatha Nath Mukherjee, received 1,836? maunds of paddy, no part of which was sold during that year. In the next year that is to say, in 1359 B.S., 1992 maunds of paddy were seized from his possession by the procurement authorities out of the which 1651? maunds were paddy harvested in 1358 B.S. To make the position a little clearer, out of 1,836? maunds of paddy harvested by the assessee in 1358 B.S., 1,651? maunds were seized by the Procurement Authorities in 1359 B.S. along with a certain further quantity. The paddy seized was paid for at the rate of ₹ 8-8-0 per maund which was the rate fixed by Government. The balance of 185 maunds of paddy out of the sto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot relevant for our present purpose. Clause (I) and (2) of the rule contemplate two different sets of things, Clause (1) contemplates a case where the agricultural produce was sold in the market and clause (2) contemplates a case where agricultural produce has not been sold in the market. It will be noticed that while clause (1) uses the past tense, clause (2) uses the presentperfect tense. The reason appears to be that clause (1) contemplates a case where the agricultural produce was sold out during the accounting year in question and clause (2) contemplates a case where, up to the end of the accounting year, the produce was not has not been sold., Neither of the clause says in express terms by reference to what date the expression ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vious year, that is during 1358 B.S., the open market price was ₹ 18 per maund but they held that there was another market which they called the regulated market created by the Procurement Authorities at which paddy was sold at a lower rate fixed by Government themselves. The Tribunal appear to have thought that since clause (a) of rule 4(2) required the average price at which the produce had been sold in the locality to the ascertained; it was right to take note of all the dates which had, in fact, been current at the relevant time. They pointed out the fact that during the relevant period two rates were prevailing in the locality and they thought notice had to be taken of both. At the same time, they were of opinion, that although ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eas the value of the balance of I85 maunds should be computed at the rate of ₹ 18 per maunds. The Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax was not satisfied with that decision and he has caused the following question to be referred to this court: Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the mandatory provisions of rule 4(2)(a) of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1944, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in valuing 1,651 maunds 20 seed's of paddy (harvested in the accounting year I358 B.S., but seized and purchased in 1359 B.S., by the Procurement Department of the Government of West Bengal) at the average procurement rate of ₹ 8-8 per maund for 1358 B.S., instead of Rs. I8 per mau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... To that confusion, even the Department contributed. It appears to have been forgotten that what was being sought was the measure of the assessee's agricultural income for the accounting year 1358 B.S. The only relevant enquiry, therefore, was as to what was the value to him of the agricultural produce received in 1358 in the year in which it was received. If, for example, a person receives a quantity of paddy in a particular year or any other thing, say gold, and sits over it during the whole of that year and finds, when the next year has come, that the price has fallen, or if by some law his goods are by then commandeered and paid for at an insignificant rate, he can, by no means be heard to connoted, if his assessment take place after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in, I find it impossible to understand how any price, other than the open market price of 1358 B.S. could be applicable to the assessee in the present case. If again, to borrow the Tribunal's language, there was a regulated market existing at the same time the assessee was not required to go anywhere near the market and there was nothing to reduce to him or for him the value of the paid which he had received below its full market price at the open market. It seems to me to be beyond argument that in the present case, where the paddy was not sold in the market during the accounting year and where the average price at which paddy was sold in the locality during the previous year is to be ascertain, the only price which is relevant is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
