K.S. Paripoornan, J.
1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following two questions of law, for the decision of this court :
'(1) Whether the Tribunal, while giving effect to the High Court's order, is correct in law in holding that the rubber replantation subsidy received is not liable to be included in the assessee's total income because it is an agricultural income ?
(2) Whether, while giving effect to the order of the High Court, wherein the question was answered in favour of the Revenue, the Tribunal can re-examine the issue from a different perspective and come to a conclusion different from that of the High Court ?'
2. The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. It is a public limited company. We are concerned with the assessment year 1978-79. The assessee is running tea and rubber plantations in Kerala and Tamil Nadu. A substantial part of its income is agricultural income. In the income-tax proceedings, the assessee claimed that a sum of Rs. 10,25,086 received by it by way of rubber replantation subsidy cannot be included in its total income under the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer rejected the said claim. The subsidy amount was included in the total income of the assessee for the purpose of income-tax. In first appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the subsidy amount is not liable to be included in the total income of the assessee under the Income-tax Act. The addition was deleted. The assessee had raised, in ground No. 8, before the first appellate authority the plea that the rubber replantation subsidy is a capital receipt. It also raised an alternate contention that the amount was received for agricultural operations and the income is agricultural in character. Aggrieved by the decision of the first appellate authority--Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)--the Revenue took up the matter in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Following its earlier decisions in similar cases, the Tribunal held that the rubber replantation subsidy received from the Rubber Board is not an income liable to tax under the Income-tax Act. The matter came up before this court on a reference at the instance of the Revenue in I.T.R. No. 444 of 1985. Question No. 2 in I.T.R. No. 444 of 1985 was to the following effect :
'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the inclusion of the rubber replantation subsidy ?'
3. A Division Bench of this court, by judgment dated March 27, 1987, answered the question thus :
'For the reasons stated by us in I.T.R. Nos. 352 and 353 of 1982 (CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. : [1987]168ITR63(Ker) ), question No. 2 is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.'
4. In pursuance of the answer given by this court, the matter came up before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for passing final orders under Section 260(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. At that time, the assessee took up the plea that it had an alternate contention before the Commissioner of Income-tax in the same proceedings to the effect that even if the rubber replantation subsidy is income, the receipt is agricultural in character and so, the said plea should be adjudicated while passing the consequential order under Section 260(1) of the Income-tax Act. The Appellate Tribunal, relying on the decisions in CIT v. Hyderabad Deccan Liquor Syndicate : [1974]95ITR130(AP) , CIT v. Hanumanbux Inderchand and CIT v. Jameal and Co. : [1981]132ITR414(Bom) , held that a point not considered while disposing of the appeal has to be considered at the time of passing the consequential and final order under Section 260(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was further held that, in this case, the point was mooted before the first appellate authority--Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)--and he did not decide it. So, it should be deemed to have been considered and decided against the assessee. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was by the Revenue. In deciding the appeal filed by the Revenue, the assessee, as a respondent, could support the conclusion of the first appellate authority on the alternate ground that the amount received by way of rubber replantation subsidy is not includible as income under the Income-tax Act. On the earlier occasion, it was held to be not includible in the total income. The point as to whether it is agricultural income or not was not decided. Since it is open to the assessee to defend the order of the first appellate authority on this ground, the Tribunal proceeded to consider that point and held, following its earlier decision in I.T.A. Nos. 228 and 229 (Coch) of 1984 dated April 30, 1987, that the rubber replantation subsidy received by the assessee is agricultural income and so not includible as income under the Income-tax Act.
5. It is thereafter at the instance of the Revenue that the questions of law formulated hereinabove have been referred for the decision of this court.
6. We heard counsel.
7. It is common ground that, in view of the Bench decision of this court in Teekoy Rubbers (India) Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1966] KLT 1008, the amount received by the assessee as rubber replantation subsidy is not agricultural income. Delivering the judgment of the Bench in Teekoy Rubbers (India) Ltd.s' case [1966] KLT 1008, Govindan Nair, )., held in paragraph 4 of the judgment thus :
'... the sum of Rs. 50,388 received by the company as rubber replanting subsidy is not agricultural income of the assessee company...'
8. It was not contended before us that the above Bench decision has been overruled or dissented or departed from. In the light of the above Bench decision of this court, we hold that the rubber replantation subsidy received by the assessee is not agricultural income. The Appellate Tribunal was in error in holding that it is. In giving effect to the judgment of this court rendered in I.T.R. No. 444 of 1985 dated March 27, 1987, the Appellate Tribunal was in error in deleting the inclusion of the rubber replantation subsidy in the total income of the assessee under the Income-tax Act. We answer question No. 1 referred to this court in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
9. Since we have answered question No. 1 referred to this court on the merits in favour of the Revenue, it is unnecessary to answer question No. 2 which is only academic. While passing the consequential order under Section 260(1) read with Section 254(1) of the Income-tax Act, the Appellate Tribunal is competent to consider and dispose of such of those questions or aspects which were not the subject-matter of the decision of the High Court or the Appellate Tribunal itself on the earlier occasion. This has been so held by one of us, sitting singly, in Paul Mathews and Co. v. ITO : [1984]148ITR629(Ker) . The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Hyderabad Deccan Liquor Syndicate's case : [1974]95ITR130(AP) , the Gauhati High Court in Hanumanbux Inderchand's case and the Bombay High Court in Jameal and Co.'s case : [1981]132ITR414(Bom) , have also taken the view that, in passing a consequential order under Section 260(1) of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal is competent to decide any other objection left undecided on the earlier occasion and, for that purpose, it is not necessary that there should be any direction or order to that effect from the High Court. In the light of the above decisions, since the question or aspect as to whether the rubber replantation subsidy received by the assessee is agricultural income or not was left undecided at the earlier stage when the Tribunal decided the matter, it was open to the Appellate Tribunal to examine the matter in passing final orders from a different and new perspective. To this extent, we answer question No. 2 in the affirmative, against the Revenue. We should also state that, on this aspect, at the earlier stage, the High Court had no occasion to render a decision. The reference is answered as above.
10. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar, shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, forthwith.