VENKATARAMAN ANNAYYA HEGDE Vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER
LAWS(KAR)-1966-6-7
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on June 17,1966

VENKATARAMAN ANNAYYA HEDGE Appellant
VERSUS
AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SIRSI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Somnath Iyer, J. - (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.
In this writ petition, the petitioner calls in question the order made by the Income-tax Officer in this way.

It is asserted on behalf of the petitioner by his learned advocate, Mr. Krishnaswamy Rao, that, since the petitioner grew on his land areca, he was clearly entitled to seek composition, since area is a commercial crop, notwithstanding the fact that some subsidiary income was derived by the petitioner in the form of income from plantation crops such as pepper and cardamom. It is admitted before us by Mr. Krishnaswamy Rao that the petitioner does grow pepper and cardamom on the land with which were are concerned. But his submission was that the main crop which he was growing on the land was the area crop.

(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 :
"'Commercial crop' means any plantation crop, are, castor, chillies, coconut, coriander, cotton, ganja, garlic, ginger, grapes, groundnut, karad, mango, mulberry, mustard, nigar, onion, plantain (irrigated), potato, sesamum (til), sugarcane, timber, tobacco or turmeric."

A plantation crop is, according to this definition, also a commercial crop, and section 2 (1) (q) defines a plantation crop thus :

"'Plantation crop' means cardamom, coffee, linaloe, orange, pepper, rubber or tea."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.