Skip to content


State of Orissa Vs. Ram Chandra Choudhury. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.J.C. No. 2 of 1961
Reported in[1962]46ITR246(Orissa)
AppellantState of Orissa
RespondentRam Chandra Choudhury.
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 173(1) proviso; [d. biswas, amitava roy & i.a.ansari, jj] appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot..........of income-tax v. raja benoy kumar sahas roy. he need not, therefore, have made a reference to this court as the law laid down by the supreme court is binding on everyone.the aforesaid question has been discussed in paragraphs 98 and 99 (page 789) of the aforesaid supreme court judgment. their lordships examined whether the expression 'agriculture' can be extended to activities in relation to land or having connection with land such as rearing of livestock, dairy farming, butter and cheese making and then observed : '..... there is no warrant at all for extending it to all activities which have relation to the land or are in any way connected with the land. the use of the word agriculture in regard to such activities would certainly be a distortion of the term.'in view of these.....
Judgment:

NARASIMHAM C.J. - The question referred to this court by the Member, Agricultural Income-tax Tribunal, Orissa, is as follows :

'Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case the Tribunal is right in holding that income from milk derived from milch cows maintained by the opposite parties is not agricultural income so as to be assessed to income-tax under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1947.'

The learned member of the Tribunal himself pointed out that this question is completely covered by a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy. He need not, therefore, have made a reference to this court as the law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding on everyone.

The aforesaid question has been discussed in paragraphs 98 and 99 (page 789) of the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment. Their Lordships examined whether the expression 'agriculture' can be extended to activities in relation to land or having connection with land such as rearing of livestock, dairy farming, butter and cheese making and then observed : '..... there is no warrant at all for extending it to all activities which have relation to the land or are in any way connected with the land. The use of the word agriculture in regard to such activities would certainly be a distortion of the term.'

In view of these observation it is clear that dairy farming will not be 'agriculture' and income from dairy farming will not also be 'agricultural income.'

The learned Member, therefore, took the correct view of the law. The reference is accordingly answered in the affirmative. There will be no order for costs.

R.K. Das J. - I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //