SARKAR - (1.) JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.) THE appellant before us was the proprietor of the well- Bwn Balarampur Estate in the State of Uttar Pradesh. He was subjected agricultural income-tax under the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural income-tax Act, 1949 for years 1355 1356 and 1357 Various proceedings arose out of the assessment orders, but it is unnecessary to den this judgment by referring to them. THE appellant appealed from Original orders of assessment and those appeals having failed, filed provision petitions against the appellate orders, but those were also unsuccess He then got a large number of questions of law referred to the High court under section 24 of the Act. THE present appeals arise out of the High court's answer to those questions. THEre are three appeals now before us in respect of each of the said three years. In these appeals only five questions have been canvassed. They related different matters and their nature can be understood only when they stated. But shortly put, the first question raises a point that the appellant's liability is subject to maximum specified in a certain provision the Act to which we will presently refer. The remaining four questions concern the appellant's claim for exemption out of his income of sums paid charities. The first question with which we propose to deal was question No. 5 before the High court. It was in these terms: " Whether condition (b) in the Schedule of Rates is applicable to I alone or to both Parts I and II." The question is really one of the interpretation of the Act, to some of provisions of which it is necessary to refer before proceeding further. -section (2) of section 2 defines " agricultural income-tax " as " tax able under this Act and includes super-tax." Section 3 is the charging ion and the relevant portion of it is as follows : " Agricultural income and super-tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule shall be bed for each year......' 'Now the Schedule so far as material runs thus: 734 SCHEDULE (See Section 3) Rates of Agricultural Income-tax PART I (a) In the case of every individual...... the basic rates of agricultural Income-tax will be as follows : JUDGEMENT_731_ITR50_1963Html1.htm These rates are subject to the condition that : (a) No agricultural income-tax shall be payable on a total agriculture income which does not exceed Rs. 3,000.00 and (b) the agricultural income-tax payable shall in no case exceed half amount by. which the total agricultural income exceeds Rs. 3,000.00. PART II (A) In the case of every individual,......the basic rates of agriculture super-tax shall be as follows: (Various rates on various slabs of income are mentioned varying fore one anna in the rupee on the income of Rs. 10,000.00 above Rs. 25,000.00 to: and a quarter annas in the rupee in respect of incomes over and Rs. 1,50,000.00). The contention of the appellant is that " agricultural income-tax " a in condition (b) in Part I of the Schedule must be read in terms the definition in section 2(2) and hence as including super-tax. He, therefore, says that the total amount of tax under both these heads payable him under the Act can in no case exceed half the amount by which his for agricultural income exceeds Rs. 3,000.00. Two reasons are given in support this contention. The first is what we have already mentioned, namely, reason based on the definition of the term "agricultural income-tax". second reason is that if " agricultural income-tax " was not so understood then relief granted by condition (b) would be available to a very small of assessees, being those whose income varied between Rs. 3,000.00 Rs. 3,214.00 Per annum. 735
(3.) IT does not seem to us that either of these reasons is well-founded. the second reason first, it may be stated that it is conceded on behalf respondent State that if the words " agricultural income-tax " in (b) do not include super-tax, then only persons having an income Rs. 3,000.00 and Rs. 3,214.00 Per annum would be benefited. The however says that there is no reason to think that the number persons was small nor that it was not intended to confine the bee them alone. We think that the contentions of the respondent State substance. We are unable to conclude from the fact that persons estates yielding income between Rs. 3,000.00 and Rs. 3,214.00 only would benefited, that the expression " agricultural income-tax " must be under to include super-tax so as to enlarge the scope of the benefit. The may have intended to confer the benefit only on persons with a smaller income. There is nothing to show that it did not do In any case we do not think that we would be Justified in including a the words " agricultural income-tax ", super-tax, for the simple a that otherwise the benefit conferred would be restricted. We may that there is nothing to show that persons with income between 3,000.00 and Rs. 3,214.00 Per annum form a small number. Coming now to the first reason, it seems to us that the context requires the definition of " agricultural income-tax " in section 2(2) should not ported into condition (b). Condition (b) is a condition to which the mentioned in Part I of the Schedule are made expressly subject. Those are only of agricultural income-tax. The obvious intention is that the at of the agricultural income-tax only, that is to say, excluding the of super-tax, that can be imposed, calculated at the rates specified I of the Schedule, is not in any case to exceed the limit mentioned (b). If it were not so, the words " Those rates are subject to preceding the two conditions would be insensible. This brings condition (b) in line with the expression " agricultural used in condition (a) where plainly it only refers to income-tax. condition says that no agricultural income-tax shall be payable on a agricultural income which does not exceed Rs. 3,000.00. Since super-tax payable unless the agricultural income exceeds Rs. 29,000.00, the agricultural income-tax " in condition (a) cannot be possibly as including super-tax. It would be incongruous if the expression cultural income-tax " in these two conditions were to be interpreted We also think that the division of the Schedule into two parts indicates that each Part is concerned with different taxes, namely, with income-tax and Part II with super-tax. This is another reason that the words " agricultural income-tax " in condition (b) in should be understood as referring only to income-tax and not 736 super-tax. For these reasons we think that the first questions: answered by saying that condition (b) only restricts the amount of tax leviable under the Act and has nothing to do with the amount of tax that can be levied. This is the way in which the question was by the High court and, in our opinion, rightly. The next question to which we now turn was marked question ] the reference. It was as follows : " Whether the Explanation to rule 17 is controlled by the rule is to be interpreted and applied independently of the rule. " ;