Jagannatha Shetty, J.
1. These revision petitions arise out of the order dated May 5, 1978, of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Bangalore, made under s. 35 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'). The Commissioner by the said order set aside the assessments for the years 1971-72 to 1974-75. He has directed the assessing officer to include four acres having acoconut plants which had then not reached the stage of yielding which the assessing officer has excluded for reaching the conclusion that the petitioner was non-assessable.
2. The only question that arises for consideration in these cases is whether the lands which are having commercial crops but not yet started yielding any income should or should not be included for the purpose of determining the exemption limit provided under the then proviso (ii) of Part I of the Schedule under s. 3 of the Act. The said proviso (ii) reads :
(See Section 3)
Rates of Agricultural Income-tax...........................
Provided that no agricultural Income-tax shall be payable........
(ii) by a person who derives agricultural income from land not more than fifty acres of the eighth class of land or an extent equivalent thereto consisting of any one or more of the classes of land specified in Part II.......'
Section 3(1), which is a charging section, is in the following terms :
'Agricultural incomes-tax at the rate or rates specified in Part I of the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each financial year commencing from the first April, 1957, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income; of the previous year of every person.'
3. If s. 3 is reads with proviso (ii), there can be little debate that a person is not liable to pay agricultural income-tax if he derives agricultural income from lands less than 50 acres of the eighth class of land or an extent equivalent there to consisting of any one or more of the classes of land specified in Part II. We are not concerned with Part II of the Schedule. It is, therefore, unnecessary to refer to the provisions thereunder.
4. The Commissioner was of the opinion that proviso (ii) is applicable only for the purpose of determining the composition of agricultural income-tax under s. 67 of the Act and not for the purpose of determining whether the assessee is assessable.
5. The view taken by the Commissioner appears to be one-sided. Section 67(1) provides that 'any person who derives agricultural income from land not exceeding one hundred and fifty acres in extent of the eighth class of land..., may apply to the prescribed officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax (and super-tax) payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lump sum at the rates specified in sub-section(2).'
6. Section 67(5) gives benefit to such person to exclude the extent of land containing only plants or trees which have not reached the stage of yielding crop for the purposes of such composition of agricultural income-tax.
7. Proviso (ii) in Part I of the Schedule is almost similar to the provisions of s. 67(5). But one has nothing to do with the other. Each operates in different circumstances, although the intent of the Legislature in incorporating these provisions appears to be the same. That is, the land with crops which have not reached the stage of yielding should be excluded for compounding as well as for assessment.
8. It is not in dispute that the four acres with which we are concerned had not started yielding any income during the relevant assessment years. It must, therefore, fall to be excluded for the purpose of determining whether the petitioner was assessable or not. If that is excluded, the remaining extent of land yielding agricultural income is admittedly less than 50 acres of the eighth class of land.
9. In the result, we allow these petitions and, in reversal of the order of the Commissioners, restore, the assessment orders. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100 in one set.