Masud, J. - (1.) The facts relevant to this reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act are as follows:
(2.) The relevant Wealth Tax assessment years relate to 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60, the corresponding valuation dates of which are 30th June 1956, 30th June 1957 and 30th June 1958 respectively. The assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of growing, manufacturing and selling tea and owns tea estates in India. In respect of the assessment for the years 1957-58 and 1958-59, the assessee claimed deductions for the value of their water supply system representing water tanks, pipelines etc. and roads and bridges employed and used in the assessee's tea estates in computing the net wealth of the assessee on the valuation dates. The relevant amounts are Rs. 14,057 and Rs. 16,690 being the value of water supply for the two years respectively aiid Hs. 33,702 and Rs. 31,948 being the value of roads and bridges respectively for the two years. The assessee also claimed that a part of the tea estate land in which the forest grows spontaneously arid which was not used for growing tea crops was agricultural land within the meaning of Section 2(e)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act and, as such, the value of such land cannot be included in the valuation of the assessee's assets. The Wealth Tax Officer estimated the value of the non-agricultural land at Rs. 50,000 and included the same in computing the net wealth of the assessee on the valuation dates. Further the assessee had made provisions for its taxation liability in its accounts on the respective valuation dates, the relevant amounts being Rs. 15,02,078, Rs. 18,07,027 and Rupees 30,65,094 for 1957-58,. 1958-59 and 1959-60 respectively. The assessee claimed the amounts as a deduction in computing its net wealth. The-aforesaid three claims of the assessee under three heads were disallowed by the Wealth Tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On further appeal, the Tribunal also did not accept the assessee's contention and confirmed the orders of the Wealth Tax Officer. Three questions of law arising out of the aforesaid facts have been referred to us which may be stated as below: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the water supply system representing water tanks and pipelines etc. and roads and bridges employed or used in the assessee's tea estates were agricultural lands within the meaning of Section 2(e)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act? 2. Whether a part of the tea estate land in which the forest grows continuously and which was not used for growing tea bushes was agricultural land within the meaning of Section 2(e)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act?
(3.) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provision for taxation as made by the assessee on the respective valuation dates constituted a debt owed by the assessee within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act and, as such deductible in computing the net wealth?" 3. It may be stated here that the question No. 3 is common to all the three years in the reference, question No. 1 relates to the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59 and question No. 2 relates to the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 only. In respect of the first question of law, the learned counsel for the assessee has contended that the water supply system representing water tanks, and pipelines etc. and roads and bridges employed or used in the assessee's tea estates are "agricultural lands" within the meaning of Section 2(e)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act and, as such, the valuation made by the Wealth Tax Officer on this account should be excluded from the net wealth of the assessee as assessed by the Wealth Tax Officer. According to him, the entire water supply system representing water tanks and pipelines etc. as well as roads and bridges used in the assessee's tea estates are necessary incidents of a tea estate inasmuch as it is impossible to run and maintain a tea estate without such water supply system and roads and bridges. The learned counsel for the department, on the contrary, has submitted that the water tanks, pipelines etc. and roads and bridges cannot be held to be agricultural land under Section 2(e)(i) and their values cannot be excluded in calculating the net wealth of the assessee. According to him, the statute has not specifically exempted the water tanks and pipelines and roads and bridges and that, unless they are held to be essential components or elements of 'agricultural land', the assessee cannot get the advantage of exemption under Section 2(e)(i).;