Thirumbadi Rubber Co. Ltd. vs Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Asst.)

S. Siri Jagan, J.—The petitioners challenge Ext. P3 order whereby the 1st respondent Joint Commissioner (Assessment) sought to assess the 1stpetitioner to Income Tax on centrifuged latex. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that this question has already been considered by a learned Single Judge of this court in O.P. No. 7954/2000 and decided in favour of the assessee holding that if agricultural Income Tax has been assessed on the centrifuged latex, no assessment can be made under the Income Tax Act. It is not disputed by the learned standing Counsel for the Income Tax department that if the assessee had actually been assessed to agricultural Income Tax and in fact the assessee has paid such agricultural Income Tax, then there is no scope for the assessment of central Income Tax on the centrifuged latex. In the above circumstances, I dispose of the original petition in the following terms:

The 2nd petitioner shall produce before the 1st respondent evidence regarding the agricultural Income Tax assessment for the very same years for which Ext. P3 order has been passed along with the proof of payment of tax pursuant to the same. If the 1st respondent is satisfied that income from the centrifuged latex has been assessed for those assessment years under the Agricultural Income Tax Act and that agricultural Income Tax has actually been paid pursuant to the same for the assessment years in question, assessment under the Income Tax Act would be modified accordingly excluding the said income from assessment. However, if there is no assessment made under the agricultural Income Tax in respect of centrifuged latex, then the assessment of income from the centrifuged latex will stand confirmed. Of course, I make it clear that this shall not be applicable to items other than the centrifuged latex in Ext. P3 order.

The original petition is disposed of as above.