Judgment :- R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. The assessee is aggrieved by the disallowance of a part of its claim for replanting allowance in the assessment of its income for the assessment year 1982-83. The Tribunal has held that the allowance can only be claimed in respect of the expenditure incurred in the assessment year, and no part of that expenditure can be claimed as a notionally carried forward replanting allowance from an earlier year in which no such expenditure had been incurred. It has also been held by the Tribunal that the word "acreage" occurring in the first proviso to clause (g) of section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), signifies the yielding area of the plantation and that the area in which the trees stand are to be excluded from the computation A charge of agricultural income-tax under section 3 of the Act is, for each financial year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Act, on the total agricultural income of the year of every person. Section 5 of the Act lays down the method of computation. Permissible deductions from the income are set out in clauses (a) to (p) of section 5. Section 4 of the Act lays down that the total agricultural income of any previous year of any person shall comprise all agricultural income derived from land situated within the State or which accrues to him within the State, excluding agricultural income derived from land situated outside the State. Income derived from property held under trust for charitable or religious purposes is also excluded from the income of the assessee for the purpose of this Act Section 5(g) of the Act reads as under: "(g) expenses other than capital expenditure incurred in the previous year of cultivating the crop from which the agricultural income is derived and of replanting or transporting such crop to market, including the maintenance of agricultural implements and cattle required for such cultivation, replantation or transportationProvided that in any particular year, the total replanting expenditure shall not exceed the amount necessary for replanting 3.33 per cent. of the acreage if the crop is rubber or coffee, 1.66 per cent. if the crop is arecanut, 2.5 per cent. if the crop is tea and 10 per cent. of the acreage if the crop is rubber or coffee, 1.66 per cent. if the crop is arecanut, 2.5 per cent. if the crop is tea and 10 per cent. if the crop is cardamom Provided further that if the replanting expenditure allowance under this section is not incurred in one year, the allowance for the year or years may be carried forward for a period of three years in the case of arecanut, tea, rubber and coffee and one year in the case of cardamom beyond the assessment year." * This clause enables the assessee to deduct from the agricultural income for the financial year, any amount spent, inter alia, for replanting subject to the ceiling prescribed in the first proviso that ceiling being 3.33 per cent. now, but which was 2.5 per cent. during the relevant assessment year in respect of rubber. The second proviso enables the assessee to carry forward for a period of three years beyond the assessment year in which this allowance is claimed the unutilised balance of the allowance in that year Learned counsel for the assessee contended that the term "acreage" used in the first proviso to section 5(g) must receive its natural meaning. In the case of any doubt a liberal construction shall be given having regard to the object of this provision the object being to encourage the owner of the estate to replant the area with a view to increase the yield and to ensure steady production and thereby maximise the total output of the crop in the country. The proviso itself does not qualify in any manner the 41 acreage" with reference to which expenditure for replanting can be incurred. The natural meaning of that term, in the context in which it is used can only be the acreage of the particular crop which is to be replanted. The age of the plants or their maturity is not relevant for the purpose of determining the acreage. The natural meaning of that term, in the context in which it is used can only be the acreage of the particular crop which is to be replanted. The age of the plants or their maturity is not relevant for the purpose of determining the acreage. It is the total area of land over which the plants or trees are grown for the purpose of obtaining the yield-coffee, tea or rubber, as the case may be that is required to be considered for the purpose of determining the percentage of the area for replanting, for which the allowance can be claimed under the first proviso to section 5(g)Clause (g) unlike clauses (k) and (e) does not use the expression "land from which agricultural income is derived". The total area, over which the planting has been done, even though part of that area does not yield agricultural income in view of the plants not being mature has, therefore, to be the basis for determining the percentage prescribed in the first proviso to clause (g) of section 5. The object of providing this allowance is further advanced by making that allowance available to the planter over a larger area, and the object is not advanced by unduly restricting it to a percentage of the area from which the yield is being obtained. We, therefore, hold that the acreage referred to in the first proviso to section 5(g) of the Act means the total area planted with rubber, coffee or tea, as the case may be. The age of the plants and yield from the plants are not relevant factors for determining the acreage Learned counsel for the assessee further contended that the second proviso to section 5(g) confers a right on the assessee to claim unclaimed allowance of the previous year, for obtaining higher allowance in the current year. It was contended that the second proviso does not state that any expenditure should have been incurred in a given year in order to enable the assessee to claim the benefit of that allowance, and, therefore, even though no replanting had been done in the earlier year, notional allowance for that year can be claimed in a subsequent year in which expenditure was incurred. We do not find any merit in this argument The total agricultural income of the assessee to be considered for the purpose of taxation is the income of the previous year, the previous year having been defined in section 2(t) to mean the period of 12 months ending on the 31st day of March for which the assessment is to be made. Section 5 of the Act lays down the deductions which can be made while computing the agricultural income for the assessment year. The second proviso to section 5(g) permits the carry forward of the replanting allowance "beyond the assessment year". Any carry forward can only be beyond the assessment year in which the replanting expenditure was first incurred. Any unutilised allowance in that year may then be carried forward for the succeeding year and the year after. There is no scope for any notional allowance and there can be no carry forward of a notional allowance from an earlier year. Though the proviso is not happily worded, it is implicit in that proviso that in order to claim the allowance, the assessee must necessarily incur some expenditure for the purpose of replanting in that assessment year and it is only thereafter the assessee may claim the benefit of the unutilised part of the allowance for that year in the succeeding year and the one thereafterThe view of the Tribunal that there is no scope for any notional carry forward from an earlier year to the assessment year, in which the expenditure for the purpose of replanting was first incurred, is correct and we confirm the same. This tax case is, therefore, allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No costs.