9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (1) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sugar Works Ltd. in the year 1947. By efflux of time the said lease came to an end on March 31, 1967. On March 27, 1967, during the subsistence of the lease, there was a partition amongst Shivappa Karachi and his sons. At that partition the lands in question were allotted to the shares of A.S.Karachi, V. S. Karachi and J. S. Karachi, the sons of Shivappa Karachi, who are petitioners in these three petitions. The lessee did not hand over possession of the lands to the petitioners herein immediately after the expiry of the period of lease. After some negotiations they were handed back to the possession of the petitioners on September 2, 1967, along with the standing sugarcane crop. The petitioners carried on some further agricultural operatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had carried on agricultural operations after September 2, 1967 ; and, that they had received the income during the relevant year. S. 2(1)(a)(2)(i) of the Act defines " agricultural income " as any income derived from land which is used for growing any commercial crop by agriculture. It is not disputed that the sugarcane in question had been raised by the petitioners by carrying on agricultural operations though the lessee had carried on such operations till September 2, 1967. Subsequent to September 2, 1967, agricultural operations had been carried on by the petitioners in order to derive the income in question. It is seen from the facts narrated above that all the ingredients which are required to make an income " agricultural income " ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operations, but were only incidental to the harvesting of the tobacco crop and that he had no interest in the land as owner, tenant or mortgagee with possession, etc. That is not the case, however, in these cases. There was a time lag of nearly four months between the date on which the petitioners got possession of the lands from the lessees and the date on which the sugarcane crop was harvested by them and the sugarcane crop was not ripe for harvesting on the date on which they got possession of the lands. Hence, no assistance can be derived by the petitioners from the decision of the High Court of Madras. One other contention urged by Sri G. Sarangan is that since the sugarcane crop which was standing on the land was allowed to be harve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. It relates to the allowance to be given under s. 13 of the Act as it stood at the relevant point of time. It is seen from the orders passed by the Agrl. ITO in these two cases that earned income relief has been denied on the sole ground that there was no proof of personal cultivation by the petitioners during the relevant period. Since we have held that agricultural operations had been carried on subsequent to September 2, 1967, we are of the opinion, that the petitioners are entitled to claim relief under s. 13 of the Act and we grant the said relief even though it has not been specifically urged in the course of the petition. On going through the orders of assessment passed by the Agrl. ITO we find that in these two cases, each of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
