JUDGMENT
T. Kochu Thommen, J.
1. The question which we should have thought was too simple to attract any controversy is :
“Is the Tribunal justified in holding that ‘motor car’ in entry III-B(i) of the statement of Rule 9 of the Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1951, includes a ‘jeep’ ?”
2. The Tribunal, not surprisingly and in our view rightly, held that the expression “motorcar” includes a jeep. In common parlance, a jeep is understood as a sturdy motor car. That is in fact the dictionary meaning : See the Concise Oxford Dictionary. That meaning is in harmony with the definition of “motor car” under the Motor Vehicles Act : See Section 2(16). In the circumstances, the Tribunal, in our view, rightly found that “motor car” includes a jeep for the purpose of deduction under Section 5 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act read with Rule 9 of the Agricultural Income-tax Rules. Accordingly, we answer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
3. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in this tax referred case.
4. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum.