9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (9) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from pepper and cardamom which are plantation crops as defined by section 2(1)(q) of the Act. The view taken by the Income-tax Officer was that, since the assessee not only grew on his land areca 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 of land for composition was possible under section 66, and so no composition could be sought under section 67. In this writ petition, the petitioner calls in question the order made by the Income-tax Officer in this way. 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 areca 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 we are concerned. But his submission was that the main crop which he was growing on the land wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specified in sub-section (2)...." It is clear from these two sections that a person who can claim composition under section 67 is one who derives agricultural income from a land whose extent does not exceed 150 acres of the eighth class of land or an area which is equivalent to those 150 acres if the land belongs to the remaining seven classes in Part II. The land which belongs to the petitioner is in the second class since the land is used by him for growing areca. So, in order to be able to seek composition, the extent of the land on which he grows areca should not exceed 15 acres according to the formula of equivalents which Part II to the Act incorporates. That formula reads : " B. Formula for determining equivalent extent of land of different classes. ----Fifty acres of eighth class of land = 25 acres of seventh class of land = 18 acres of sixth class of land= 15 acres of fifth class of land = 12 acres of fourth class of land=6 acres of third class of land=5 acres of second class of land=3 acres of first class of land." So, fifty acres of the eighth class are equivalent to five acres of second class and hundred and fifty of the eighth class will, therefore be equivale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other than plantation crops, ganja or timber " with which section 66 opens. While it is contended by Mr. Narayana Rao appearing on behalf of the Income-tax Officer that the use to which the section refers is the exclusive use, the competing interpretation placed before us for the petitioner is that the section speaks of the main use of the land and not of any exclusive use. If we can say that a land which is mainly used for growing commercial crops, other than plantation crops, ganja or timber, is a land in respect of which a classification could be made under section 66, it would be easy to say that a composition could be sought under section 67 in respect of the agricultural income derived from such land. If, on the contrary, section 66 speaks of a land which is exclusively used for growing a commercial crop other than plantation crops, ganja or timber, no composition under section 67 would be permissible. Now, the land to which section 66 refers is a land used for growing commercial crops other than plantation crops, ganja or timber. The petitioner also grows pepper and cardamom on his land in addition to areca. Areca is a commercial crop, and pepper and cardamom are plantat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of the section. The perplexity comes into being only when there is a land on which a commercial crop to which the section refers is grown, and, in addition, a plantation crop or ganja or timber is also grown. The perplexity becomes enhanced by the classification made by Part II of the Act. For instance, a land used for growing areca is in the second class and a land used for growing chillies is in the fourth class. In respect of both classes of land, a classification is possible and so a composition. But in the case of a land on which both crops are grown, the question would be whether the land is in the second class because areca is grown on it, or, whether it is in the fourth class because chillies are also grown on it. The solution to the difficulty so presented, in the context of the purpose and the scheme of sections 66 and 67, is to understand the user to which section 66 refers as the dominant or main use for which the land is employed. The word "used" occurring in that section has reference to the employment or application of the land for a particular purpose, and remembering the difficulty presented, if that word is literally understood as having reference to ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to say that, until the definition was amended, pepper and cardamom grown as subsidiary crops on a land, on which areca was grown as the main crop, were not plantation crops by reason of the Explanation and so there was no impediment to the application of the 66th section to such land. We were asked to say that once they were accorded the status of plantation crops with the removal of the Explanation to section 2(1)(q), the land became one on which a plantation crop was grown and was taken outside the orbit of the 66th section. This submission at first sight might appear to provide some sustenance to the interpretation suggested by Mr. Narayana Rao. But we are of the view that the amendment made to the definition makes no difference to the question whether a land on which a subsidiary crop such as pepper and cardamom is grown, when the main crop grown is areca, is or is not within the second class in Part II. We are of the opinion that it continues to be within that classification, and we may state briefly the reasons for our saying so. The view that we take is that our interpretation of the 66th section and of the words " lands used for growing commercial crops " therein should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
