PATNA HIGH COURT
S.C.Misra and S.Wasiuddin JJ.
Syed Rafiqur Rahman
Versus
Commissioner Of Wealth Tax
Tax Case No. 5 of 1966 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 16, 1969
WEALTH TAX - Agricultural Land - Definition - Interpretation - Whether a plot of land situated in the heart of a town surrounded by residential buildings can be regarded as agricultural land - Tests to be applied.
Fact of the Case:
The assessee owned a plot of land situated in the heart of Patna town, which was recorded as a mango orchard in the municipal survey khatian of 1933. The land was sold in July 1962 for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000. The Wealth Tax Officer included the value of the land in the assessee's wealth for the assessment year 1962-63, holding that it was not agricultural land. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal, but both upheld the Wealth Tax Officer's decision. The assessee then filed a reference application to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the land was not agricultural land on the relevant date for the purposes of the Wealth Tax Act. The Court applied the tests laid down in the Privy Council decision in Mustafa Ali Khan v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., Ajmer and Ajmer-Merwara (AIR 1949 PC 13) and the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, Calcutta v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy ((1957) 32 ITR 466 = (AIR 1957 SC 768)) to determine whether the land was agricultural land. The Court found that there was no evidence that the land was actually being cultivated at the relevant date and that the basic operations and subsequent operations as laid down in the Supreme Court decision were being carried on at the relevant point of time. The Court also noted that the land was situated in the heart of a town surrounded by residential buildings, and that it had been sold for a very high price, which indicated that it was not being used for agricultural purposes.
Issues: Whether the land in question was agricultural land on the relevant date for the purpose of Wealth Tax Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the land was not agricultural land on the relevant date for the purposes of the Wealth Tax Act. The Court applied the tests laid down in the Privy Council decision in Mustafa Ali Khan v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., Ajmer and Ajmer-Merwara (AIR 1949 PC 13) and the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, Calcutta v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy ((1957) 32 ITR 466 = (AIR 1957 SC 768)) to determine whether the land was agricultural land. The Court found that there was no evidence that the land was actually being cultivated at the relevant date and that the basic operations and subsequent operations as laid down in the Supreme Court decision were being carried on at the relevant point of time. The Court also noted that the land was situated in the heart of a town surrounded by residential buildings, and that it had been sold for a very high price, which indicated that it was not being used for agricultural purposes.
Final Decision: The reference application was dismissed, and the Wealth Tax Officer's assessment was upheld.
Wasiuddin, J.
1. This is a reference under Sec.27(3) (b) of the Wealth Tax of 1957 (Act 27 of 1957).
2. The relevant facts which have given rise to this present reference may be briefly stated as follows: The assessee was assessed under the Wealth Tax Act for the year 1962-63 for which the relevant date of valuati9n is 31-3-1962. The assessee filed a return disclosing his net wealth of Rs. 1,07,699. The, Wealth Tax Officer determined the total wealth at Es. 5,91,999. He included in this assessment a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 (One lac fifty thousand) representing the value of a plot of land owned by the assessee bearing survey plot No. 794 and situated at Bhat-tacharjee Road, Patna. The assessee contended that this was agricultural land and, therefore, was not liable to assessment under the Wealth Tax Act. The Wealth Tax Officer overruled this objection and as stated above included the value of this land also. The assessee then preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the Wealth Tax and he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Wealth Tax Officer. The assessee, therefore, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, and there also it was contended that the land in question was agricultural and used for agricultural purposes and as such not liable to assessment. The Appellate Tribunal also dismissed the appeal and thereafter an application was filed before the Appellate Tribunal for referring the case to the High Court and this was also rejected. The assessee then moved the High Court and a Division Bench of this Court on 30-8-1966 directed the Tribunal to state the case for the opinion of the Court under Sub-section (3) of Sec.27 of the Wealth Tax Act. The question which was formulated by the Court is as follows:-
-
"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the disputed land was not agricultural land on the relevant date for the purpose of Wealth Tax Act."
3. Before I take up the discussion of the facts and the questions of law which are involved in answering this question, I may first of all refer to the relevant provisions of the Wealth Tax Act (hereinafter called as the Act). The charging section is Sec.3 of the Act which lays down as follows:
"Subiect to the other provisions contained in this Act, there shall be charged for every financial year commencing on and from the first day of April, 1957, a tax (hereinafter referred to as wealth-tax) In respect of the net wealth on the corresponding valuation date of every individual, Hindu undivided family and company "at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule."
The tax, is, therefore, payable on the net wealth and so it is necessary to see as to what is the definition of net wealth and assets in the Act. Net wealth is defined in Sec.2(m) of the Act which Is as follows:-
-
" net wealth means the amount by which the aggregate value computed in accordance with the provision of this Act of all the assets, wherever located, belonging to the assessee on the valuation date, Including assets required to be included In his net wealth as on that date under this Act, is in excess of the aggregate value of all the debts owed by the as- eessee on the valuation date other than... ..."
There are certain exceptions which do not constitute the net wealth and are given in this section, but it is not necessary to reproduce those here. The word assets has been defined in Sec.2(e) of the Act which runs as follows:-
-
" assets include property of every description, movable or immovable, but does not include- (i) agricultural land and growing crops, grass or standing trees on such land;
(ii) any building owned or occupied by a cultivator or receiver of rent or revenue out of agricultural land. Provided that the building is on or in the immediate vicinity of the land and is a building which the cultivator or the receiver of rent or revenue by reason of his connection with the land requires as a dwell
Paramananda Das V/s. Sankar Rath
Smt. Manyam Meenakshamma V/s. Commr. Of Wealth-tax, A.P.
T. Sarojini Devi V/s.T. Sri Krishna
Commissioner Of Income-tax, West Bengal, Calcutta, V/s. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy
Mustafa Ali Khan V/s. Commr. Of Income-tax, U.P., Ajmer And Ajmer-merwara
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.