Judgment :- 1. These four references are at the instance of the assessee, and are in respect of four assessment years 1961-62 to 1964-65 (both inclusive). The questions are: 1. Whether the sale proceeds of rubber trees sold for being cut and removed with roots for replantation for a single consideration can be separated into the value of the trees and the value of the latex that can possibly be extracted there from by slaughter tapping and whether the latter is assessable to agricultural income in the hands of the owner who sold the trees? 2. Whether the income attributed to the centrifugal process etc. is assessable as agricultural income? 3. Whether in the absence of a machinery to harmonise and reconcile the assessment and fixation of the quantum of assessable income and apportioned expenditure under the State and Central enactments, the Agricultural Income Tax Department is justified in not following and ignoring the basis and assessment of the Central Income Tax Authorities and disallow legitimate expenditure apportioned to it by adapting different methods, inconsistent with and rejected by the Central Income Tax Authorities in view of Art.366 of the Constitution and whether the proper basis of apportionment is the one adopted by the Central Income Tax Authorities or the Agricultural Income Tax Authorities?" 2. Mr. T. L. Viswanatha Iyer, learned counsel for the assessee at whose instance the references were made, at the outset submitted that questions Nos. 2 and 3 have become purely academic, in that it has been held by the Income-tax authorities that the income attributable to centrifugal process etc is not assessable to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act. Regarding the income attributable to centrifugal process the assessee contended that a portion of such income has been held to be business income assessable under the Indian Income-tax Act, and that therefore that such income should be exempted in computing Agricultural income. The Tribunal overruled this claim for the reason that the Income-tax Act or Rules do not warrant the assumption that such income is taxable under the Income-tax Act. Questions Nos. 2 and 3 were referred to this Court in these circumstances. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee no answers are called for, and we decline to answer questions Nos. 2 and 3. 3. Questions Nos. 2 and 3 were referred to this Court in these circumstances. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee no answers are called for, and we decline to answer questions Nos. 2 and 3. 3. The point raised in the first question is covered by the decision of this Court in E. J. John v. State of Kerala (I. T. R. Nos. 76 and 77 of 1965)' Since we notice that that decision remains unreported we will usefully extract the relevant portions of that judgment here: "For the relevant accounting period for the year 1962 1963 the assessee received Rs. 32,250/-pursuanl to the agreement Annexures D and D1 for the assessment year 1963 1964 a sum of Rs. 45.750/ pursuant to the agreement Annexure D. The Tribunal has assessed for the two years these amounts treating the entirety of these amounts as agricultural income of the assessee. The question is whether the whole of the above amounts can be treated as agricultural income. On a reading of the two agreements there can be no doubt that the amounts that have to be paid by those who entered into agreements with the assessee represent payments for permitting them to take the latex as well as for permitting them to cut and remove the trees. A consolidated amount is provided for the two though payments are to be made in instalments. There can be no doubt that is every payment pursuant to these agreements, there is an element of payment towards the capital namely, the value of the trees which were ultimately to be cut down. no doubt there is also a payment towards the latex which on the terms and conditions, according to the two documents, we think, represents agricultural income. 6. The Tribunal however has treated the entirety of the payment as agricultural income. This is not correct. That part of the amounts, Rs. 32,250/ and Rs 45,750/-, which represents the value of the trees can only be a capital receipt and is not agricultural income. That part of these amounts will have therefore to be deducted from these amounts for determining the agricultural income received by the assessee pursuant to the two agreements Annexure D and D1. In the light of the above, we answer the question referred to us in the following manner. The documents are composite ones. That part of these amounts will have therefore to be deducted from these amounts for determining the agricultural income received by the assessee pursuant to the two agreements Annexure D and D1. In the light of the above, we answer the question referred to us in the following manner. The documents are composite ones. The entire amounts received as per the agreements, Annexure D and Dl are not liable to Agricultural Income tax. These amounts must be bifurcated. that pertaining to latex and that which is attributable to the value of the trees. The former will be income liable to tax and the latter cannot be taken into account for the purpose of imposing Agricultural Income tax". The principles emerging from the above decision of M. S. Menon, C. J. and Govindan Nair J. have been set out in another case decided by us today (LT R. No. 16 of 1972) as follows: (i) The consideration paid by the purchaser allowed to 'slaughter tap"" represents payment for permission to take latex as well as for permission to cut and remove the trees; (ii) There is an element of payment towards capital, namely, the value of the trees which are ultimately to be cut down; (iii) There is also payment towards latex which represents agricultural income-, (iv) The amount of consideration received by the owner for the permission given by him to 'slaughter tap' and to cut and remove the trees is to be bifurcated into that pertaining to latex, and that which is attributable to the value of trees; (v) The part pertaining to latex is agricultural income, liable to tax, and the other part which is attributable to the value of the trees is not liable to tax". 4. In the case in hand the assessee (a company) is the owner of the land on which the rubber trees sold stood. The consideration amount received by the company in respect of the transaction has to be bifurcated, 'that pertaining to latex and that which is attributable to the value of the trees.' The former is to suffer Agricultural Income-tax and the latter not. 5. Our answer to the first question is in the affirmative, both as regards the first and second parts of that question, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 5. Our answer to the first question is in the affirmative, both as regards the first and second parts of that question, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The assessee will pay the costs of these references including advocate's fee of Rs. 250/- in each of the cases. A copy of this judgment shall be sent under the seal of this Court and the signature of the Registrar to the Appellate Tribunal.