Satyanarayana Rao, J.-The only question that has been referred in these cases is:

“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the income derived from casuarina plantation is agricultural income within the meaning of S.2 (1) of the Income-tax Act.

We understand that besides these cases in which a reference has been made, there are also other cases-in which similar questions have been raised and are pending decision. The Appellate Tribunal was of opinion that the income derived from casuarina plantations is”agricultural income“which is exempted from taxation under section 4(3)(viii) of the Income-tax Act.

The facts are not seriously in dispute and it is also common knowledge that in order to raise casuarina plantation it is necessary to prepare the soil, raise seedlings, cultivate the land and plant them. After the plantation, the plants require watering for periods, ranging from 3 to 5 years according to the nature and quality of the soil. Even after the expiry of the period of three years or five years, the trees in order to facilitate their growth require pruning. The trees are cut usually 8 to 10 years after they are transplanted. It is therefore an undoubted fact that the tillage of the soil and the employment of labour and skill are required to grow a plantation. The wood of the trees is used mostly either for fuel or for building purposes. The question is whether the income realised by the sale of the trees after they are cut is agricultural income within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Act and exempt from taxation under section 4(3)(viii) of the Act.

The Act defines”agricultural income“in these terms:”

‘Agricultural income’ means-

(a) any rent or revenue derived from land which is used for agricultural purposes, and is either assessed to land revenue in British India or subject to a local rate assessed and collected by the -officers of the Crown as such;

(b) any income derived from such land by-

(i) agriculture, or

(ii) the performance by a cultivator or receiver of rent in kind of any process ordinarily -employed by a cultivator or receiver of rent in kind to render the produce raised or received by him fit to be taken to market, or

(iii) the sale by a cultivator or receiver of rent in kind of the produce raised or received by him, in respect of which, no process has been performed other than a process of the nature described in sub-clause (ii);

Under both the clauses (a) and (b) of this definition the income must be derived from land which is used for agricultural purposes.

The meaning of the expression “agricultural purposes” was the subject matter of conflicting decisions of Courts under various statutes in which the expression in some form or other occurred. It may not be quite legitimate to rely largely upon the decisions which have construed a similar or analogous expression in other Acts for interpreting the expression used in section 2(1) of the Income-tax Act. The recent decision of the Privy Council in Raja Mustafa Ali Khan through Special Manager, Court of Wards, Utraula District Gonda v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., Ajmer and Merwara1, to some extent has paved the way to evolve a clearer definition of the expression. In this decision the Judicial Committee had to consider section 2(1) of the Income-tax Act, in order to determine whether the income from forest trees was agricultural income and therefore exempt from taxation. The trees in question were of spontaneous growth and there was nothing to indicate that the assessee carried on any regular operation in forestry. Their Lordships of the Judicial Committee approved the test laid down by this Court in Tuvaraja of Pithapuram v. Commissioner of Income-tax,2 and also by the Chief Court of Oudh, and the High Court of Allahabad. For the purpose of disposing of the appeal before their Lordships, they laid down at page 277 of the report that:

“Though it must always be difficult to draw the line, yet, unless there is some measure of cultivatio