9911796707
TMI Blog1946 (4) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the assessee objected as being revenue derived from land which was used for agricultural purposes and which is assessed to land revenue within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Income-tax Act and was, therefore, exempt from assessment to income-tax under Section 4(3)(viii) . The items in dispute were : (i) Sale of catechu. ₹ 5,095. (ii) Kahcharai (dues paid for grazing wild grass), ₹ 3,350. (iii)Sale of Narkul Jalkar (thin reeds growing on the banks of a river), ₹ 1,485. (iv )Sale of forest timber, ₹ 6,856. (v)( a) Sale of grass and phus (thatching straw), jhau (a kind of shrub growing on the banks of a river). (b)Income from bhang (rent paid to assesses by per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon principles laid down in a number of decisions of various High Courts for the proposition that the items in dispute, being of wild and spontaneous growth, did not come within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Income-tax Act, and were consequently assessable to income-tax and we are of the opinion that the conclusions at which the Tribunal has arrived are correct. It is now settled law that the income from sale of forest trees or fruit from trees which are of spontaneous growth on land, even if it is assessed to land revenue, is not income from land used for agricultural purposes. In Chandrasekhara Bharati v. Duraiswami Naidu [1931] ILR 54 Mad. 900, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that growing trees for f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avedan Tirumalpad [1930] ILR 54 Mad. 21, wherein a Special Bench held that: The amounts received by the owner of unassessed forest lands, by the sale of timber trees thereon, are income liable as such to income-tax. In Province of Bihar v. Maharaja Pratap Udai Nath Sahi Deo of Ratugrh [1941] 9 ITR 313 , which was a decision by a Special Bench of the Patna High Court, Harries, C.J., made the following observations : It appears that this head of income was derived from virgin jungles or jungle land not actually cultivated. A few forest guards appear to have been employed to protect the property, but it cannot be said that the trees have grown as the result of cultivation. They appear to have grown naturally in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... habad High Court held that the land used for the purpose of a grove was not land held for agricultural purpose. This decision was approved by their Lord-8hips of the Judicial Committee in Kesho Prasad Singh v. Sheo Pragash Ojha [1924] ILR 46 All. 831. If, therefore, a grove in which mango, imli and Kathal fruit trees usually grow, is not land held for agricultural purposes, it follows that income from the fruits of such trees in a grove is not agricultural income and a fortiori income from the fruits of trees of spontaneous growth cannot be held to be such income as to be exempt from income-tax under Section 4(3)(viii) of the Income-tax Act. The learned counsel for the applicant has strenuously contended that the grass growing on l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich is assessed to land revenue, naturally and without the intervention of human agency, is 'agricultural income' within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Income-tax Act, and as such exempt from income-tax under Section 4(3) (viii) of the Act a Bench of this Court, to which one of us was a party, held that the income from sale of such grass did not come within the exemption provided by Section 4(3)(viii) of the Income-tax Act. As already observed, we see no difference between the revenue derived by the sale of grass or by way of grazing dues. Upon consideration of the authorities cited above, we are of the opinion that none of the items in dispute in the present case are exempt from income-tax and we answer the question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
