TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of law, which is referred to us at the instance of the assessee and as per the directions of the High Court, is as under: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the income from shooting hire charges is not agricultural income within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82?" The assessee had shown the loss of more than Rs. 1,00,000 in all the three assessment years, viz., 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. As the loss claimed was more than Rs. 1,00,000 in each assessment year, draft assessment orders were proposed to which the assessee filed his objections. On the basis of that, the assessment orders came to be passed. In his returns, the assessee had shown certain income as income from "shooting hiring charges" in the sense that the assessee used to permit the film-shooting in his premises, which was known as "Vijaya Gardens", and used to charge for the same. The assessee claimed that those charges amounted to "agricultural income" as the said premises was used for the agricultural activities also. The assessing authority, however, treate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit to be taken to market ; or (iii) the sale by a cultivator or receiver of rent-in-kind of the produce raised or received by him, in respect of which no process has been performed other than a process of the nature described in paragraph (ii) of this sub-clause; (c) any income derived from any building owned and occupied by the receiver of the rent or revenue of any such land, or occupied by the cultivator or the receiver of rent-in-kind, of any land with respect to which, or the produce of which, any process mentioned in paragraphs (ii) and (iii) of sub-clause (b) is carried on: Provided that the building is on or in the immediate vicinity of the land, and is a building which the receiver of the rent or revenue or the cultivator, or the receiver of rent-in-kind, by reason of his connection with the land, requires as a dwelling house, or as a store-house, or other out-building;" The whole thrust of the assessee appears to be as against clause (a) of the section. The assessee probably wants that any rent derived from the land should be enough to cover the charges recovered for permission to do the film shooting on the lands. In his arguments, learned counsel merely took th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly to cultivation of the land in the strict sense of the term meaning thereby, tilling of the land, sowing of the seeds, planting and similar operations of the land. They would be the basic operations and would require the expenditure of human skill and labour upon the land itself." After having named these basic operations, the Supreme Court also found that there were other operations which were required to be resorted to by the agriculturists which were absolutely necessary for the purpose of effectively raising the produce from the land, they being, weeding, digging the soil around the growth, removal of undesirable undergrowths and all operations which foster the growth and preserve the same not only from insects and pests but also from depradation from outside, tending, pruning, cutting, harvesting and rendering the produce fit for the market. The Supreme Court observed that these latter activities were taken in conjunction with the basic operations then alone it could be said that though they were divorced from the basic operations, they could still have the character of agricultural operations. The Supreme Court further observed in the following words: "We are of opini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtion of the term." Applying these tests and the observations of the Supreme Court in Raja Benoy Kumar's case [1957] 32 ITR 466, can it be said that the income earned by the assessee by way of shooting-hire charges by permitting the film producers to shoot their films in his garden becomes "agricultural income". The answer is obvious and would have to be in the negative. In fact, the only nexus that the assessee asserts as existing between the "income" and the "land" is that the shooting of the films is done on the agricultural land. In Raja Benoy Kumar's case [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC), even the subsequent activities, which were at least indirectly connected with the basic agricultural operations, have also not been held to be agricultural operations at all and the income therefrom has not been heightened to the level of the "agricultural income". Here, the shooting of the films is the activity which has absolutely no nexus whatsoever with the agricultural operations or as the case may be with the land excepting that the shooting is done on the land which may be or have been an agricultural land yielding some agricultural income. The nexus, as claimed by the assessee, is non-existe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
