9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (5) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with one set of printing costs be deposited by the appellant, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Assam. The appellant filed one statement of case but the respondents in the six appeals filed separate statements of case each one of them. Smt. Jyotikana Chowdhurani, the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 51 of 1956, is the widow and legal representative of the late Jyotsna Nath Choudhury who was a co-sharer and proprietor of the Mechpara Estate situate in the District of Goalpara in the State of Assam. The said estate is assessed to land revenue payable to the State of Assam and is also subject to local rates assessed and collected by the officers of the Assam Government. The said estate has vast areas of forest tracts, considerable portions of which are covered mainly by sal trees. The trees in the forests are of spontaneous growth and there was no planting or sowing or employment of any human agency for the purpose of tilling the soil. The late Rai Sourindra Narayan Sinha Chowdhury father of Shri Jyotirindra Narayan Sinha Choudhury was a co-sharer of "Parbat Joar Estate", and had been assessed by the Income-tax Officer in the year 1923, on receipts from the sale of sal trees from hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal and was succeeded by his mother the respondent. The Appellate Income-tax Commissioner, Calcutta " B " Range, by his order dated March 15, 1948, reduced the assessment. The respondent preferred an appeal against the said order of the Appellate Tribunal which dismissed the appeal. The same question was referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to the High Court for its opinion under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act at the instance of the respondent. Kamal Krishna Chowdhury, the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 60 of 1955, was a co-sharer proprietor of the Mechpara Estate within the district of Goalpara in Assam and he was also assessed to income-tax from the sale of sal trees from his forests for the year 1946-47 by an order of the Income-tax Officer, Gauhati, dated 17th December, 1946. He also filed unsuccessful appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta "B" Range, and to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at his instance referred the very same question to the High Court for its opinion under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. Sourindra Narayan Chowdhury, the respondent in Civil Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the trees in the forest were of spontaneous growth (which is now stated by the representatives of the assessee that it meant of spontaneous germination), there was no planting or sowing nor were any human agency employed for the purpose of tilling the soil. From all that was done to the trees it was clear that the trees sold were those standing for a considerable number of years during which the soil had remained untouched. In the production of the income the applicants made no contribution by way of cultivation. The applicants' case, however, was that there had been employment of human skill and labour with respect to the forests. Apart from the fact of the maintenance of a forest establishment, it was claimed that human skill and labour were employed for the maintenance, preservation, nursing, improving and rearing of the forests, so that the quality and general condition of the forest might be improved. It is claimed by the applicants in their petition which was filed before the Tribunal on 22nd June, 1951, in reply to the draft statement of case that the following activities with reference to the forests were taken recourse to : (a) reservation of blocks of forest commonly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spontaneous germination, the operations carried on by the assessees were conducive to the growth and development of the trees and in essence involved the expenditure of human skill and labour on the land itself. In the opinion of the Court those operations were " agricultural operations " and the land on which the trees stood was being used for " agricultural purposes " and, therefore, the income from the sale of the trees was " agricultural income " and was exempt from taxation under section 4(3)(viii) of the Income-tax Act and the Court accordingly answered the referred question in the affirmative. The appellant applied for and obtained certificates of fitness under section 66A(2) of the Act and that is how these appeals have come up for hearing and final disposal before us. The connotation of the terms " agriculture " and " agricultural purpose " and the conditions under which the forestry operations performed by the assessee on forests of spontaneous growth can be assimilated to agricultural operations so as to constitute the income derived from the sale of the forest trees agricultural income within the meaning of its definition in section 2(1) of the Indian Income-tax Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We are of opinion that the ratio adopted by the majority of the judges of the High Court was erroneous and the referred question ought to have been answered in the negative. We are fortified in this conclusion if regard be had to the fact that the forestry operations which were performed by the assessees were of insignificant value as compared with the gross receipts derived by them from the sale of the forest trees. In the case of Mechpara Estate the costs of these operations did not even come to 8 per cent. and in the case of the Parbatjoar Estate even to 4 per cent. of the gross income. All these operations were mainly operations performed for facilitating the spontaneous growth of these trees from the forest land and could not by any stretch of imagination be assimilated to agricultural operations. We are therefore of opinion that the decision reached by the majority of the judges of the High Court was not correct and it ought to be set aside. The appeals will, therefore, be allowed and the referred question will be, answered in the negative. The appellant will get from the respondents one set of costs in all the appeals in this Court and Rs. 250 being the consolidated hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
