2000 Supreme(SC) 1912

2000(8) Supreme 53
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Kerala High Court)
S.P. Bharucha, Doraiswamy Raju & Mrs. Ruma Pal, JJ.
The Commissioner of Agricultural Income-Tax, Kerala -Appellant
versus
The Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd., Kottayam -Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 2243-2249 of 1993
Decided on 29-11-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : T.L.V. Iyer, Sr. Advocate, G. Prakash, Jyothish, Advocates.
For the Respondent : S. Ganesh, Advocate (A.C.).

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Application of Explanation 2 to Section 5 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-Tax Act is not confined to Clause (j) of Section 5 alone; Explanation 2 explains generally as to what are not deductible as expenditure for the purpose of computing the agricultural income in the light of the various clauses of Section 5 of the Act, as a whole.
2. If the intendment is not in the words used it is nowhere else and so long as there is no ambiguity in the statutory language resort to any interpretative process to unfold the legislative intent becomes impermissible.

Headnote:(i) Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950-Section 5, Explanation 2-Scope and application of Explanation 2-Explanation 2 explains generally as to what are not deductible as expenditure for purpose of computing agricultural income in the light of various clauses of Section 5 as a whole-Explanation 2 not confined in its application only to clause (j) of Section 5-Assessee not entitled to deduction expenditure on land or bring up immature oil palm plantation.

       Clause (j) of Section 5 is in the nature of residuary provision. It necessarily means that the other clauses are in relation to a few of the enumerated items of expenditure envisaged for deduction and the mere fact that some alone are illustrated specifically do not render those provisions to be read in a truncated or disjointed manner from the residuary clause ignoring the avowed object of Section 5 as a whole, viz., computation of agricultural income, as defined in Section 2(a) of the Act after making the deductions to which an assessee is found eligible. Thus, viewed when Explanation 2 specifically use the words, "nothing contained in this section shall be ....." expressing a specific intention to encompass the entire Section 5 of the Act reading it otherwise and to confine its relevance and application to only clause (j) of Section 5 would amount to not only rewriting the statutory provision by the Court, but also doing violence to the plain and simple language used. When an Explanation or Proviso was to apply to any one clause or limb alone of Section 5, the legislature has chosen to incorporate it even in the very Section 5 below the specific or particular clause which it was meant to explain or except as in clause (c) or (l) and (n). The fact that instead of doing so the Explanation 2 has been incorporated at the end of Section 5 along side Explanation 1, which also use the words "for the purpose of this section ....", the intention of the legislature must be considered to have been made certain, positive and unambiguous, leaving no room or scope whatsoever for having recourse to either internal or external aids for interpretation or construction of the said provision. (Para 3)

       If the intendment is not in the words used it is nowhere else and so long as there is no ambiguity in the statutory language resort to any interpretative process to unfold the legislative intent becomes impermissible. An Explanation is intended to either explain the meaning of certain phrases and expressions contained in a statutory provision or depending upon its language it might supply or take away something from the contents of a provision and at times even to, by way of abundant caution, clear any mental cobwebs surrounding the meaning of a statutory provision spun by interpretative process to make the position beyond controversy or doubt. (Para 4)

       Consequently, we are unable to approve the reasoning of the High Court as to the need for having recourse to internal or external aids to interpret the Explanation 2 to Section 5 as well as its ultimate conclusion to whittle down the otherwise wide range and area of operation and application of Explanation 2 to the entirety of Section 5 of the Act. In our view, Explanation 2 to Section 5 of the Act, therefore explains generally as to what are not deductible as expenditure for the purpose of computing the agricultural income in the light of the various clauses of Section 5 of the Act, as a whole. (Para 5)

       The claims of the respondent, be it in respect of rent or interest paid to the creditors by the assessee on the loans obtained and utilised for the purpose of cultivation etc. shall not be eligible for deduction so far as it relates to the respective portions spent in respect of land or the bringing up of the immature oil palm plantation. (Para 6)

       (ii) Interpretation of Statutes-Explanation clause in statute-Interpretation of-Principles. (Para 4)