SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1966 Supreme(Kar) 148

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
A.R. Somnath Ayyar and Ahmed, JJ.
Venkataraman Annayya Hedge —Appellant
Vs.
Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Sirsi and another —Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2400 of 1965
Decided on : 07-06-1966

Advocates:
.Advocate Appeared:
Mr. B.V. Krishnaswamy Rao, for the Appellant
Mr. U.L. Narayana Rao, for the Respondent

The main use of the land for growing a commercial crop determines its classification for composition under the Mysore Agricultural Income Tax Act, and an amendment to the definition of a plantation crop does not change this classification.

Headnote:

Agricultural Income Tax - Composition of Tax - Mysore Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1957 - Section 67 - 66, 67 - The court discussed the relevant statutory provisions, including the definition of agricultural income, commercial crop, and plantation crop, as well as the classification of land for composition of agricultural income tax. The interpretation of the main use of the land for growing commercial crops and the impact of an amendment to the definition of a plantation crop were key in the court's decision.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought composition of agricultural income tax for his land, primarily used for growing areca, but also derived income from subsidiary crops such as pepper and cardamom. The Income Tax Officer refused composition, citing the presence of plantation crops on the land.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the main use of the land for growing a commercial crop determined its classification for composition under section 66. The court also held that an amendment to the definition of a plantation crop did not change the classification of the land for composition purposes.

Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of the main use of the land for growing commercial crops, the impact of an amendment to the definition of a plantation crop, and the refusal of composition by the Income Tax Officer.

Ratio Decidendi: The main use of the land for growing a commercial crop, the legislative intent of providing composition for persons with small holdings, and the impact of an amendment to the definition of a plantation crop were central to the court's decision.

Final Decision: The court set aside the Income Tax Officer's order and directed that composition under section 67 should be allowed according to law.

JUDGMENT

Somnath Iyer, J.—The petitioner is a resident of the village of Manjaavalli in the District of North Kanara, in which he owns 8 acres and 21 guntas of agricultural land. On May 26, 1964, he made an application under section 67 of the Mysore Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1957, for composition of the agricultural Income Tax payable by him. By an order made on July 20, 1964, the Agricultural Income Tax Officer refused composition on the ground that he had "learnt" that the assessee had reaped and derived an income from pepper and cardamom which are plantation crops as defined by section 2 (1) (q) of the Act.

2. The view take by the Income Tax Officer was that, since the assessee not only grew on his land area which is a commercial crop as defined by section 2 (1) (e), but also derived income from pepper and cardamom which are plantation crops as defined by section 2 (1) (q), no classification for composition was possible under section 66, and so no composition could be sought under section 67.

3. In this writ petition, the petitioner calls in question the order made by the Income Tax Officer in this way.

4. It is asserted on behalf of the petitioner by his learned advocate, Mr. Krishnaswamy Rao, that, since the petitioner grew on his land areca, he was clearly entitled to seek composition, since area is a commercial crop, notwithstanding the fact that some subsidiary income was derived by the petitioner in the form of income from plantation crops such as pepper and cardamom. It is admitted before us by Mr. Krishnaswamy Rao that the petitioner does grow pepper and cardamom on the land with which were are concerned. But his submission was that the main crop which he was growing on the land was the area crop.

5. It would now the necessary to allude to the relevant statutory provisions. It is seen from the preamble to the Act that its purpose is to charge Income Tax on agricultural income from lands on which commercial crops are raised. Section 2 (1) (a) defines agricultural income as including income derived from a land by agriculture. So, it is seen from this including income derived from a land by agriculture. So, it is seen from his definition that since the income which the petitioner derives from growing area on his land is income derived by agriculture, that income is agricultural income. Section 2 (1) (e) defines a commercial crop thus :

"'Commercial crop' means any plantation crop, are, castor, chillies, coconut, coriander, cotton, ganja, garlic, ginger, grapes, groundnut, karad, mango, mulberry, mustard, nigar, onion, plantain (irrigated), potato, sesamum (til), sugarcane, timber, tobacco or turmeric."

6. A plantation crop is, according to this definition, also a commercial crop, and section 2 (1) (q) defines a plantation crop thus :

"'Plantation crop' means cardamom, coffee, linaloe, orange, pepper, rubber or tea."

7. That was how the definition stood during the period with which we are concerned which is the year 1963-64, which is the previous year for the assessment year 1964-65.

8. Sections 66 and 67 are the other two sections to which we should now refer. They read :

"66. Classification of land for composition of agricultural Income Tax, etc. - (1) Lands used for growing commercial crops other than plantation crops, ganja or timber shall be classified into eight classes as specified in Part II of the Schedule for determining -

(i) the extent of land entitled to exemption from payment of agricultural Income Tax under clause (ii) of the first proviso to Part I of the Schedule; and

(ii) the extent of the land and the rates for lump sum payment to be made for purposes of composition of the agricultural Income Tax under section 67. .........

67. Composition of agricultural Income Tax. - (1) Any person who derives agricultural income from land not exceeding one hundred and fifty acres in extent of the eighth class of land or an extent equivalent thereto consisting of any one or more of the classes of land specified in






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top