Krishna Iyer, J. - (1.) The freak but few facts of this appeal appear to highlight an issue of morality versus legality. But a closer scrutiny whittles down this conflict and induces us to dismiss the appeal, subject to certain observations warranted by the circumstances of the case. We may proceed straight to a miniaturised statement of the circumstances giving rise to the controversy before us.
(2.) The appellant has been the owner of a mango grove of long ago from which he has been deriving income by way of fruits and fallen trees. Way back in 1939-40 he claimed this income to be agricultural and therefore immune to Central income tax. His plea was overruled by the Income-tax Officer, but adverse orders notwithdanding, the assessee reached the High Court undaunted by the disappointment he met with as he steered through the statutory spiral of authorities. Unfortunately, on account of the zigzag course of this litigation which had its deck-by-deck slow motion, more than two decades passed before the High Court could pronounce at long last in favour of the appellant holding that the income in dispute was agricultural income and therefore could not be taxed.
(3.) The State did not carry the ease further to this Court and thus the decision of the Allahabad High Court rendered on March 21,1963 became final. As a proposition of law, on the facts of the case, the ruling was that such income as arose from mango fruits and fallen trees was agricultural income and therefore outside the pale of the Income Tax Act (vide S. 4 (3) of the Income Tax Act). We have no reason to disagree with this view and proceed to dispose of this writ appeal which has come to us by certificate under Art. 133 (1) (a) of the constitution on the footing that for all the assessment years with which we are concerned - as will be explained presently - what has been taxed and is in dispute is agricultural income.;