1979 (4) TMI 18 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of sections 2(6), 2(7)(e) and Part IV of the 1st Schedule of the Finance Act, 1973, and sections 2(2), 2(7)(b)(ii), 2(8)(e) and Part IV of the Finance Act, 1974.
2. Whether the provisions for aggregation of agricultural and non-agricultural income violate the scheme of taxation under the Income Tax Act.
3. Legislative competence of Parliament to enact provisions affecting agricultural income.
4. Alleged discrimination against individuals with agricultural income.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of Sections:
The writ petitions challenge the constitutional validity of sections 2(6), 2(7)(e) and Part IV of the 1st Schedule of the Finance Act, 1973, and sections 2(2), 2(7)(b)(ii), 2(8)(e) and Part IV of the Finance Act, 1974. These provisions allow the aggregation of agricultural income with non-agricultural income for the purpose of calculating a higher tax rate. The court noted that the provisions in question were practically repeated in the Finance Act, 1974.

2. Violation of the Scheme of Taxation:
The petitioners argued that the aggregation of agricultural and non-agricultural income violates the scheme of taxation sanctioned by section 4 of the Income Tax Act and other sections. Section 4 of the Income Tax Act specifies that income is to be charged "in respect of total income of the previous year or previous years as the case may be of every person." The petitioners contended that agricultural income, being exempt under section 10(1), should not be included in the total income for tax computation. The court referred to precedents such as CIT v. N. M. Raiji and Panna Sanjay Trust v. CIT to emphasize that the legislative device of deeming certain income for tax purposes is permissible. The court concluded that the Finance Acts of 1973 and 1974 did not violate the provisions of the Income Tax Act.

3. Legislative Competence:
The petitioners argued that Parliament lacked the legislative competence to enact provisions affecting agricultural income, as agricultural income falls within the purview of the State legislature under Entry 46 of List II. The court referred to the principles of "pith and substance" to determine the true nature of the legislation. Citing precedents such as Union of India v. Harbhajan Singh Dhillon and Second GTO v. D. H. Nazareth, the court concluded that the impugned provisions were within the legislative competence of Parliament under Entry 82 of List I, which pertains to "Taxes on income other than agricultural income."

4. Alleged Discrimination:
The petitioners claimed that the provisions were discriminatory as they subjected individuals with agricultural income to higher tax rates. The court held that the classification was reasonable and based on intelligible differentia, as it only affected individuals with both agricultural and non-agricultural income. The court found that the provisions did not subject agricultural income to tax but merely used it to determine the rate of tax on non-agricultural income. The court concluded that the provisions were not discriminatory.

Conclusion:
The court rejected all the contentions raised against the validity of the impugned provisions of the Finance Acts of 1973 and 1974. The writ petitions were dismissed without costs, and the court expressed gratitude to the counsel for their able arguments.