VENKATARAMAN ANNAYYA HEGDE Vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a resident of the village of Manjaavalli in the District of North Kanara, in which he owns 8 acres and 21 guntas of agricultural land. On May 26, 1964, he made an application under section 67 of the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, for composition of the agricultural Income-tax payable by him. By an order made on July 20, 1964, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer refused composition on the ground that he had "learnt" that the assessee had reaped and derived an income from pepper and cardamom which are plantation crops as defined by section 2 (1) (q) of the Act.

(2.) THE view take by the Income-tax Officer was that, since the assessee not only grew on his land area which is a commercial crop as defined by section 2 (1) (e), but also derived income from pepper and cardamom which are plantation crops as defined by section 2 (1) (q), no classification for composition was possible under section 66, and so no composition could be sought under section 67.

(3.) IT would now the necessary to allude to the relevant statutory provisions. IT is seen from the preamble to the Act that its purpose is to charge Income-tax on agricultural income from lands on which commercial crops are raised. Section 2 (1) (a) defines agricultural income as including income derived from a land by agriculture. So, it is seen from this including income derived from a land by agriculture. So, it is seen from his definition that since the income which the petitioner derives from growing area on his land is income derived by agriculture, that income is agricultural income. Section 2 (1) (e) defines a commercial crop thus :