9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (3) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hough he owned 38.33 acres of land, he cultivated an extent of less than 12.50 standard acres and, therefore, the Act itself did not apply to him. Though the Agricultural Income-tax Officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not accept this contention of the first respondent, the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal accepted this contention and held that the Act has no application to the first respondent. It also alternatively held that even on the basis that the Act applied, the income derived by the first respondent was below the taxable limit and, therefore, no tax was payable by him. It is the correctness of these conclusions that is challenged by the State in the present tax revision petitions. Consequently, two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te the land. It may happen that in one year for seasonal conditions or for want of water a person may cultivate a lesser extent and in another year he may cultivate more extent, in the first year the extent cultivated being less than 12.50 standard acres and in the second year, it being more than 12.50 standard acres. In such a case it cannot be contended that by virtue of section 10(1) the person is exempt from the Act for the first year, but comes within the scope of the Act for the second year. It is one thing to say that a person is exempt from the Act under section 10(1) of the Act, but it is entirely another thing to say that a person is not liable to pay tax under the provisions of the Act either because the income itself is exempt f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n expenditure allowed by him are low. If the Tribunal's standard is applied to the various income and expenditure, the net agricultural income of the appellant, even if it is found that he held lands of more than 12.50 standard acres each year, the net income in each year will be below the taxable limit." In this paragraph the Tribunal has not given any facts and figures as to the gross income obtained or the cultivation expenses incurred by the first respondent for the purpose of finding out whether his income in each of the four years was within the taxable limit or not. In view of this very summary and scrappy manner in which the Tribunal has dealt with this aspect of the matter, we have no option but to set aside the order of the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
