TMI Blog1995 (9) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different assessees, assessment years and with reference to a different quantum of net wealth in individual cases. The broad and relevant facts necessary to appreciate the problems posed for our opinion may be set out hereinafter before undertaking a consideration of the relevant questions themselves. The assessees are individuals who are partners in firms owning estates and holding tea or coffee gardens. While computing the net wealth of the respective assessees, the Wealth-tax Officers concerned added the value of the interest of the assessee-partner in the firm as movable property and computed it as a share of net wealth of the firm. While doing so, the Wealth-tax Officer excluded the exempted assets to the extent provided under section 5 of the Act. The assessees also claimed that the tea and coffee bushes in the gardens of the estates must be treated as standing crops and exempted under section 5(1)(viiia) of the Act without any limit unlike the agricultural lands which were exempt under section 5(1)(iv)(a) of the Act only up to the specified and prescribed limit. The assessing authority was of the view that the standing crops in the case of tea bushes would mean only the tw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue, and Mr. Janarthana Raja, for the assessees. So far as the first of the two questions are concerned, which came to be referred jointly with the other question at the instance of the Revenue, our attention has been brought to the decision of an earlier Division Bench of this court in R. Venkatavaradha Reddiar v. CWT [1995] 214 ITR 76 in which an identical question came up for decision and already a considered judgment has been rendered sustaining the view of the Tribunal in similar cases and rejecting the plea of the Revenue, to the contra. There is no controversy before this court that the ratio of the said decision squarely applies and governs the first of the questions raised in these cases. Applying the ratio of the said decision to the facts and circumstances of the cases before us and to the first of the questions referred for our opinion, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, that the Appellate Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the assessee individual is entitled to the exemption by way of deduction under section 5(1)(iv)(a) of the Act in respect of his share of the agricultural land held by the firm, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CWT [1992] 195 ITR 646. On going through those two decisions, we find the question that fell for the decision of the High Court of Kerala in those cases was not in the same terms and the manner in which it is now raised before us. As a matter of fact, there was no dispute of the nature now before us, in those cases and the decisions in those cases are of no assistance to us. Therefore, the matter has got to be considered independently, as raised before us : The crucial question is as to the scope of the words "growing crops" (including fruits on trees). In Imamali Abdul Kadar v. Rani Priyawati Devi, AIR 1937 Nag 289, the words "growing crops" came up for consideration in the context of a contract of lease of land for cultivation of lac. While adverting to the earlier view taken by the very court, Vivian Bose J. (as the learned judge then was) held as follows : " But it is doubtful whether the reasoning on which that decision is based can be sustained any longer. The view taken there is the old view that lac produce cannot be regarded as a growing crop. That is no longer the law. It is now looked upon as a 'periodical crop' and consequently until gathered must be 'growing c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or attributing technical or scientific meaning to those words. Per contra, Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, contended that the reasons assigned by the Appellate Tribunal to sustain the construction placed by the Revenue are sound and acceptable in law and there is no justification to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing on either side. From the history of the legislation and the provision under consideration, we find that up to the assessment year 1969-70, these assets seem to have been specifically exempted under clause (e) of section 2 of the Act and the value of such assets was not at all includible in the assessable wealth. With the insertion of section 5(1)(viiia) of the Act, section 2(e) also underwent a change by the very same Finance Act and the exclusion provided under section 2(e) was specifically restricted to years up to 1969-70 and not extended there after apparently in view of a specific provision inserted in section 5(1)(viiia) of the Act. In the light of the exposition contained in the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahadeo v. State of Bombay, AIR 1959 SC 735, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
