V. VENUGOPALA VARMA RAJAH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KERALA

CIVIL APPEAL No. 810/1967Supreme Court[1970] 2 S.C.R. 54724 September 1969Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI, A.N. GROVER V. VENUGOPALA VARMA RAJAH7 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court held that on the facts found, the trees were not removed with their roots, and the stumps were left to allow for regeneration. The Court reasoned that selling parts of a tree, such as trunks, where stumps remain intact and capable of regeneration, would be in the nature of income. The Court cited various precedents where income from the sale of timber or forest trees was held to be taxable revenue. The Court explicitly stated that it was not necessary to decide the question of whether the sale of trees with roots, preventing regeneration, would constitute a capital receipt, as that scenario did not arise in the present case. Therefore, the receipt of Rs. 75,000/- was considered revenue and taxable.

What were the facts?

The Income-tax Officer included Rs. 75,000 received by the appellant's father for cutting and removing trees from 500 acres of forest land in Madras State for the assessment year 1959-60. The officer considered this income taxable due to 'clear felling'. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed this. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held the receipt to be of a capital nature and deleted it. The High Court disagreed with the Tribunal. The Supreme Court directed the Tribunal to submit a supplementary statement of case regarding the agreement terms, particularly 'clear felling'. The Tribunal clarified that 'clear felling' meant cutting trees at six inches from the ground, leaving barks intact on stumps for regeneration. The trees were of spontaneous growth.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that Rs. 75,000/- being income from felling of trees from forests is not subject to income-tax? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention (as inferred from Tribunal's decision): The receipt of Rs. 75,000/- from the felling of trees was of a capital nature because it involved 'clear felling' and there was no diminution of capital assets, as the stumps remained for regeneration. The Tribunal relied on observations that trees were cut 6" above the ground and later destroyed, indicating no capital asset reduction. Revenue's Contention (as inferred from High Court's decision and ITAT's initial order): The income from felling of trees was taxable. The High Court held that 'clear felling' under the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949, implied not removing trees with roots, but rather ensuring regeneration and future growth, thus constituting revenue. The Income-tax Officer considered it taxable income from a lease for 'clear felling'.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 4(3)(viii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A V. VENUGOPALA VARMA RAJAH v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KERALA February 13 I September 24, 1969 547 B [J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.)

Capital or Income-Contract for 'clear felling' of trees i.e. cutting them so as to leave six inches of the stump to allow regeneration-Forest of spontaneous growtlz-lncome from sale of trees so felled whether in the nature of revenue. c- In computing the income of the appellant's father for the assessment year 1959-60 the Income-tax Officer included Rs. 75,000 received under an agreement for cutting and removing trees from 500 acres of forest land in Madras State.

The Income-tax Officer held that the income was taxable because the land was leased for 'clear felling' by the father of the appeJlant.

What the expression 'clear felling' meant was not investigated by the Inc.ome-tax Officer.

The Appellate Assistant Commissioner con- firmed the assessment order.

But the Tribunal held that the receipt was D of a capital nature and deleted it from the taxable income.· In reference the High Coun differed from the Tribunal.

In appeal against the High Court's order this Coui"t directed the Tribunal to submit to t

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →