Skip to content


Joseph Chacko Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberOriginal Petition No. 5329 of 1968
Judge
Reported in[1970]77ITR610(Ker)
ActsKerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 - Sections 2
AppellantJoseph Chacko
RespondentAgricultural Income-tax Officer
Appellant Advocate K.J. Chacko, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateGovernment Pleader
Excerpt:
- .....assessed to land revenue or subjected to a local rate assessed and collected by an officer of the government as such. it is only if he finds that the land comes within any one of these categories that he can assess the income from the lands as agricultural income. he will proceed in the light of his finding on this question, and pass the proper order. 4. the writ petition is disposed of as above. no costs.
Judgment:

K.K. Mathew, J.

1. Section 2(a) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act runs as follows :

' ' Agricultural income ' means-

(1) any rent or revenue derived from land which is used for agricultural purposes; and is either assessed to land revenue in the State or subject to a local rate assessed and collected by officers of the State Government as such.

(2) any income derived from such land by-

(i) agriculture, or

(ii) the performance by a cultivator or receiver of rent-in-kind of any process ordinarily employed by a cultivator or receiver of rent-in-kindto render the produce raised or received by him At to be taken to market, or

(iii) the sale by a cultivator or receiver of rent-in-kind of the produce raised or received by him, in respect of which no process has been performed other than a process of the nature described in Sub-clause (ii)....'

2. The contention of the petitioner in this petition is that the land in question belongs to the Government, that the petitioner has entered the land, applied for lease of the land under the rules for lease of the Government lands for cardamom cultivation, and, therefore, the income derived from it is not agricultural income.

3. The Income-tax Officer has said in the order of assessment that the cardamom land in the possession of the petitioner is assessed to kuthakapattom by the Assistant Settlement Officer for cardamom, and, therefore, it is assessed to tax. This view of the officer is quite wrong. The kuthakapattom payable is not tax assessed on the land. Therefore, the order of assessment is wrong. I set aside the order and direct the Income-tax Officer to find whether the land in question is either assessed to land revenue or subjected to a local rate assessed and collected by an officer of the Government as such. It is only if he finds that the land comes within any one of these categories that he can assess the income from the lands as agricultural income. He will proceed in the light of his finding on this question, and pass the proper order.

4. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.


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