JUDGMENT : P.K. Subramonia Iyer, J. This reference is made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, at the instance of the Malayalam Plantations Limited, Quilon, whose appeal No. 41/1123 challenging their assessment to agricultural income tax on Pounds 2861-3-6 d. had been dismissed by their order dated 15.12.1123. Four questions have been referred to this Court as arising out of the said order. They are:- (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the sum of Pounds 2861-3-6 is not allowable as a deduction in arriving at the agricultural income? (ii) Whether the case is governed by the provisions of Act I of 1119 or Act XXIII of 1121. (iii) Whether the land on which the trees grow should be taken as the entire plantation and not any particular piece of land on which particular bush or tree grow? and (iv) Whether the term “Expenses for cultivating the crop” covers only the expenses of the particular trees which yield within the year of account? 2. Act I/1119 Travancore imposed tax on agricultural income which had thereto before been exempt therefrom. It was an act appertaining exclusively to agricultural income. Subsequently a consolidated Act, XXIII/1121 was passed making separate provisions for tax on agricultural as also on non-agricultural income. The provisions relating to agricultural income are materially different form those relating to non-agricultural income. Whereas in the case of non-agricultural income the method of computation of income, profits and gains mentioned in the charging Section is not statutorily laid down, in the case of agricultural income, Act I/1119 as also that part of Act XXIII/1121 appertaining to agricultural income contain detailed provisions as to how agricultural income subject to the impost of tax is to be ascertained. S. 3 of Act I/1119 provides for a charge on the “total agricultural income” which expression is defined in S. 2(15) thus:- “2. [15]. “Total agricultural income” means the aggregate of the amounts of agricultural income of the different heads specified in Ss. 6 and 7 as determined respectively in the manner laid down in the said Sections including income comprised in dividends from companies earning agricultural income and share of income from any firm or association of individuals earning agricultural income.” and Ss. 6 and 7 run as follows:- “6. The agricultural income mentioned in sub-cl. [a] of Cl. 6 and 7 as determined respectively in the manner laid down in the said Sections including income comprised in dividends from companies earning agricultural income and share of income from any firm or association of individuals earning agricultural income.” and Ss. 6 and 7 run as follows:- “6. The agricultural income mentioned in sub-cl. [a] of Cl. [1] of S. 2 shall be deemed to be the sum realised in the previous year, on account of agricultural income mentioned in the said sub-cl. [a], after making the following deductions:- [a]. the sum actually paid in the previous year as revenue to Our Government or to the Sripandaravagai or to the Sripadam or as Jenmikarom or as rent to a landlord in respect of the land from which such agricultural income is derived; [b]. the sum actually paid in the previous year in respect of such land as any local cess or rate payable in pursuance of any enactment for the time being in force; [c] a sum equal to such percentage, as may be prescribed, of the total amount of the rent which accrued due in the previous year, in respect of the charges for collecting the same; [d] any expense incurred on the maintenance of any irrigation or protective work constructed for the benefit of the land from which such agricultural income is derived; [e] interest actually paid on any amount borrowed and actually spent on any capital expenditure incurred after the commencement of this Act for the benefit of the land from which such agricultural income is derived; [f] depreciation at the prescribed rate in respect of any capital asset purchased or constructed after the commencement of this Act for the benefit of the land from which such agricultural income is derived, or for the purpose of deriving such agricultural income from such land; [g] any interest paid on any mortgage or any other kind of debt or any interest paid on other capital charge incurred for the purpose of acquiring the property from which such agricultural income is derived. “7. [1]. The agricultural income mentioned in sub-cl. [b] of Cl. [1] of S. 2 shall be assessed on the net amounts of such income determined in the prescribed manner. [2]. “7. [1]. The agricultural income mentioned in sub-cl. [b] of Cl. [1] of S. 2 shall be assessed on the net amounts of such income determined in the prescribed manner. [2]. Rules prescribing the manner of determining the net amounts of agricultural income for the purpose of this section shall provide the following deductions shall be made from the gross amounts of such income, namely:- [a] the sum actually paid in the previous year as revenue to Our Government or to the Sripandaravagai, or to the Sripadam or as Jenmikaram or as rent to a landlord in respect of the land from which such agricultural income is derived; [b] the sum actually paid in the previous year in respect of such land as any local cess or rate payable in pursuance of any enactment for the time being in force; [c] the expenses of cultivating the crop from which such agricultural income is derived, of transporting such crop to market, including the maintenance of agricultural implements and cattle required for the purpose of such cultivation and for transporting the crop to market; [d] any tax, cess or rate paid on the cultivation or sale of the crop from which such agricultural income is derived; [e] any expense incurred on the maintenance of any capital asset purchased or constructed before this Act came into force, if such maintenance is required for the purpose of deriving such agricultural income from such land; [f] [i] any expense incurred on the maintenance of any irrigation or protective work constructed for the benefit of the land from which such agricultural income is derived; [ii] interest actually paid on any amount borrowed and actually spent on any capital expenditure incurred after the passing of this Act for the benefit of the land from which such agricultural income is derived, or for the purpose of deriving such agricultural income from such land; [iii] depreciation at the prescribed rate in respect of any capital asset purchased or constructed after the commencement of this Act for the benefit of the land from which such agricultural income is derived, or for the purpose of deriving such agricultural income from such land; and [iv] any interest paid on any mortgage or other capital charge incurred for the purpose of acquiring the property from which such agricultural income is derived or for the purpose of cultivation of the property: Provided that no deduction shall be made under this clause, if it has already been made under S. 6; and [g] such other deductions as may be prescribed.” “Prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this Act. (S. 2, Cl. 12). S. 44 provides for the making of rules pursuant to which, rules were made and published. (See Acts & Proclamations, Vol. XIV, Part II, Pages 668 at seq) R. 3 runs as follows:- “3. [1]. Except in the cases mentioned in the next two succeeding rules, for the purpose of determining the net amount of income of any land referred to in sub-s. [1] of S. 7 the following shall be deemed to be the gross agricultural income of such lands:- [i] if the agricultural produce of the land has been sold, the actual price for which such produce was sold; [ii] if the agricultural produce of the land has not been sold in its raw state but has been subjected to any process ordinarily employed by a cultivator or receiver of rent in kind to render the produce raised or received by him fit or better suited to be taken to market the actual value at which it was sold or the value of such produce calculated according to the average price at which such produce was sold in the market during the year previous to that in which the assessment is made; Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-rule the term ‘produce’ includes all saleable rights held or owned by the cultivator or estate owner for the production, growth, sale or export of the produce in its marketable form. [iii] if the agricultural produce of the land has not been sold, or if such produce has been utilised only as raw material for any manufacturing business, the value of such produce calculated according to the average price at which such produce was sold in the market, in the year previous to that in which the assessment is made. [2] For arriving at the next assessable amount of income deductions in respect of the following items shall be made from the gross agricultural income computed in the manner specified in sub-r. [1]:- [i] The expenses incurred by the cultivator or receiver of rent in kind in performing any processes contemplated in cl. [ii] of sub-r. [1]; [ii] The expenses mentioned in Cl. [ii] of sub-r. [1]; [ii] The expenses mentioned in Cl. [a] to [f] of sub-s. 2 of S. 7 of the Act; [iii] In respect of animals which were used for the purpose of agriculture and have died or become permanently unfit for use in the previous year the difference the original cost to the assessee of the animals and the amount, if any, realised in respect of the carcasses or animals, as the case may be; [iv] Any sums paid by the assessee in the previous year as premium in order to effect any insurance against loss of or damage to such land or any corps to be raised or cattle to be reared thereon; [v] The expenses in respect of charges for collecting the produce receivable by the assessee as rent or share in the produce; and [vi] The customary annuities paid in cash or kind to artisans and other persons, whose services are required in connection with cultivation: Provided that no expenses in respect of which deductions have already been allowed to an assessee under any of the provisions of S. 6, in connection with the assessment of the agricultural income of the nature mentioned in sub-cl. [a] of Cl. [1] of S. 2 in respect of the same land, nor any payments of a charitable or religious nature, shall be permissible under this sub-rule.” The provisions of Act XXIII/1121 in this regard are similar. 3. Another point in which the provisions relating to agricultural and non-agricultural income vary is in respect of deductions from income permitted to be made to arrive at the net amount for levying tax. The last head of deduction for non-agricultural income is “any expenditure not (being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly or exclusively for the purpose of such business profession or vocation”, (S. 12(2)(xv), Act XXIII/21, same as S. 10 (2)(xv) of the Indian Incometax Act) but in the case of agricultural income, the last head of deduction is “such other deductions as may be prescribed” (S. 7(2)(g), Act 1/1119 and S. 14(3)(g), Act XXIII/21). Thus as regards agricultural income, both in respect of computation as also in respect of deductions, the provisions of the statute constitute the sole guide which have therefore to be applied regardless of hardship, principles of business or any other consideration. Thus as regards agricultural income, both in respect of computation as also in respect of deductions, the provisions of the statute constitute the sole guide which have therefore to be applied regardless of hardship, principles of business or any other consideration. In Partington v. The Attorney-General (1969) Law Reports 4 H.L. 100 at page 122) Lord Cairns said:- “....................................... as I understand the principle of all fiscal legislation, it is this : If the person sought to be taxed comes within the letter of the law he must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be. On the other hand, if the Crown, seeking to recover the tax, cannot bring the subject within the letter of the law, the subject is free, however apparently within the spirit of the law the case might otherwise appear to be. In other words, if there be admissible, in any statute, what is called an equitable construction, certainly such a construction is not admissible in a taxing statute, where you can simply adhere to the words of the statute.” 4. The Appellate Tribunal say in the reference made by them that “the amount therefore really represents the expenditure incurred for replanting a portion of the estate, a portion on which yielding trees were standing originally.” It is agreed before us by learned Counsel on both sides that this may be taken to be the fact. The assessee describes the amount as expenditure for “development” in his memorandum of appeal. S. 6 of Act 1/1119 which has been read above, provides for the method of computation of agricultural income. There is no place in the scheme adumbrated therein for any replantation or any expenditure in respect of such a process. The question then is whether the amount in question is a permissible deduction under S. 7, which also has been read above. The only head under which learned counsel for the assessee sought to bring it is Cl. (c) which refers to the expenses of cultivating the crop from which such agricultural income is derived. The question then is whether the amount in question is a permissible deduction under S. 7, which also has been read above. The only head under which learned counsel for the assessee sought to bring it is Cl. (c) which refers to the expenses of cultivating the crop from which such agricultural income is derived. It was contended that the word “crop” ought not to be taken as confined to the actual yield which is collected and marketed, but must be taken as being wide enough to include the maintenance of the estate as a whole which, it is contended, would take in replantation of planted area wherein trees do not continue to exist either on account of natural causes or on account of their being removed, as is the case here, owing to old age and unproductivity. 5. Learned counsel for the assessee referred to the Law Lexicon of Ramanatha Iyer wherein it is stated as follows:- “The word crop is derived from the old English “croppe” signifying the top of a plant. It is primarily some product of the soil and has been defined as everything produced from the earth by annual planting, cultivation and labour; and it may mean either a gathered or a growing crop. As thus limited the word is practically synonymous with emblements and hence does not include the fruits of perennial trees, but taken in its most comprehensive sense it includes grasses and the fruits of trees. A crop is considered as “growing” from the time the seed is planted in the ground, and it is usually classed as such until it is gathered.” He also referred to the definition of the word given in the Incometax Ordinance, 1947 of the Federation of Malaya which runs thus:- “Crops include any form of vegetable produce”. The citations do not appear to render any assistance to the assessee. The Act authorises deductions only of the expenses of cultivating the crop from which such agricultural income is derived. This is obviously inapt to include the expenses of replantation. Learned counsel for the assessee placed great reliance upon a decision of the Court of Session (Scotland) in Vallambrosa Rubber Co. The Act authorises deductions only of the expenses of cultivating the crop from which such agricultural income is derived. This is obviously inapt to include the expenses of replantation. Learned counsel for the assessee placed great reliance upon a decision of the Court of Session (Scotland) in Vallambrosa Rubber Co. Ltd. v. Farmer (V Tax Cases 529) for the position that though only 1/7th of the total number of trees had begun to yield, the cost of maintenance not merely of those that yielded, but of those that did not being immature, would be a permissible annual revenue expenditure and that the assessable income would be the yield from the 1/7th of the estate minus the expenditure in respect of the entire estate. The contention urged is that the matter should be approached from the point of view of sound business according to which, an estate or plantation must be taken as a single unit and the income expenditure of that unit as a whole must be regarded and not of parcels of portions separately. The soundness of the decision relied upon is unquestionable. The decision itself is however of no application to the facts of this case. Their Lordships had not to consider the provisions of a statute as we have to do here. Again Their Lordships were considering the question of maintenance of an estate already planted which would be revenue expenditure. Whether the expenditure for replantation can be regarded as revenue expenditure did not form the subject-matter of their Lordships consideration. The decision therefore affords us no assistance in this case.” 6. The assessee’s claim is that the amount in question is an expenditure to be deducted from the annual income. It is not claimed that the expenditure should be reckoned with in arriving at the income itself. 7. For the foregoing reasons, our answers to the questions referred are as follows:- Question No. 1: The sum of Pounds 2861-3-6 d. is not allowable as a deduction. Question No. 2: The assessment in question is for the account year preceding 1119 and for the assessment year 1119. The Act that was in force then was Act I/1119. The case is therefore governed by that Act. Question No. 3: This question is unintelligible and cannot be answered without clarification. Question No. 2: The assessment in question is for the account year preceding 1119 and for the assessment year 1119. The Act that was in force then was Act I/1119. The case is therefore governed by that Act. Question No. 3: This question is unintelligible and cannot be answered without clarification. Question No. 4: “Expense for cultivating the crop” will include the expenditure for replantation of a defined portion as is the case here. The expression may include not merely the cost of maintenance of the particular tress that yield but also of those that do not yield in the particular year. It would depend upon the circumstances and no categorical answer can be given. 8. We may add that in our view the case is one that falls to be decided under the terms of the statute and our answers are based thereon. We had not to consider nor have we considered the question untrammelled by statutory provisions and on general principles appertaining to the method of computation of income or the permissible deductions from a business point of view which would have been necessary had there been no detailed statutory provisions governing the case. 9. The other decisions referred to by learned counsel for the assessee in the course of the argument have relation to those general principles and call for no discussion as they are inapplicable in the circumstances of this case. 10. We direct the assessee to pay the cost of this reference to the opposite party represented by the Advocate General and we fix the advocate’s fee at Rs. 250/-.