The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between agricultural income and capital receipts, emphasizing the conditions for income to be considered agricultural income and the treatment of shade trees as capital assets.

Govinda Bhat, J.—These are three revision petitions preferred by an assessee under section 55 of the Mysore Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the "Act" against the common order dated January 30, 1967, made by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax, Bangalore, by which, in exercise of his suo motu powers of revision, he set aside the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax and restored the assessment orders of the Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Coorg.

2. The assessee is the Consolidated Coffee Ltd., formerly known as the "Consolidated Coffee Estates (1943) Ltd." having its registered office at Pollibetta, Coorg. The assessee owns 10,610 acres of land of which 7,277 acres are under coffee, 277 acres under cardamom, 689 acres under paddy, etc., and 2,367 acres are abandoned coffee areas and now a jungle. The assessee company was formed in the year 1943. After the formation of the company, the assessee bought several coffee estates and consolidated them. During the relevant accounting period in respect of the assessment years 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64, the assessee sold from its lands rosewood trees. The proceeds of sale of the said rosewood trees after deduction of expenditure was claimed to be not assessable to tax under the Act. The assessee in its return to the Income Tax Officer under the Central Income Tax Act claimed that the said amounts are not taxable on the ground that the they constitute capital and not income. The Income Tax Officer, the Coorg Circle, Mercara, rejected the contention of the assessee and assessed the amount to tax. Before the Agricultural Income Tax Officer, the assessee contended that the said amount had been assessed under the Central Income Tax Act and hence could not be assessed under the Act and, further, that the receipts are capital and as such not taxable as income. The Agricultural Income Tax Officer overruled the objections and assessed the receipts to tax under the Act. The Agricultural Income Tax Officer was of the opinion that the rosewood trees must have been planted as shade trees for growing coffee.

3. The Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax,Mysore Division on appeals preferred by the assessee, allowed the appeals and set aside the assessment orders on the ground that there is no documentary evidence to prove that the trees were grown by using human labour or skill either at the time of planting or at the time of growth, and therefore, there was no justification to levy agricultural Income Tax on the sale proceeds of the rosewood trees.

4. The Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax,Bangalore, issued notices to the assessee to show cause why the orders of the Deputy Commissioner should not be revised on the ground that exemption from tax has been wrongly given. The assessee reiterated its contentions that the trees are of spontaneous growth and therefore the sale proceeds do not constitute agricultural income and further that the proceeds of sale constitute capital receipts. Before the Commissioner, the assessee field affidavits of experts in support of its contention that the trees are of spontaneous growth. One of the affidavits was by a retired chief conservator of forests who is also the owner of a coffee estate. The other affidavits were by two experienced planters in Coorg. The retired Chief Conservator of Forests in his affidavit stated that the rosewood trees standing on the lands of the assessee are not found in rows which would be the case if they had been planted by human agency and that, in his opinion, the trees cut and sold must be of age above 150 years. The affidavits of the two planters were to the effect that the trees in question were in existence even 45 to 50 years ago. The Commissioner overruled the objections of the assessee, set aside the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and restored the assessment orders of the Agricultural Income Tax Officer. The grounds for the decision of the Commissioner