| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1972 SLD 3069 = 1972 PTD 552 |
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Referred No. 40 of 1964, decided on 26th November 1968.
Presented By: P. Jaganmohan Reddy, C. J., Parthasarathi and Ramachandra Rao, JJ
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Raja Benow Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) 32 I T R 466 (S C); Sri Krishna Rao L. Balekai v. Third Wealth Tax Officer, Bangalore (1963) 48 I T R 472; Rasiklal Chimanlal Nagri v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (1965) 56 I T R 608 and Tea Estates India (Private) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (1966) 59 I T R 428 distinguished. In re: Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 A I R 1941 F C 72 ; Megh Raj v. Allah Rakhia A I R 1942 F C 27 ; Megh Raj v. Allah Rakhia A I R 1947 P C 72 and Sri Ram Ram Narain v. State of Bombay A I R 1959 S C 459 ref. D. Narasaraju and Anwarulla Pasha for Appellant. T. Ananta Babu for
Respondent.
Case Referred No. 40 of 1964, decided on 26th November 1968.
Presented By: P. Jaganmohan Reddy, C. J., Parthasarathi and Ramachandra Rao, JJ
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Raja Benow Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) 32 I T R 466 (S C); Sri Krishna Rao L. Balekai v. Third Wealth Tax Officer, Bangalore (1963) 48 I T R 472; Rasiklal Chimanlal Nagri v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (1965) 56 I T R 608 and Tea Estates India (Private) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (1966) 59 I T R 428 distinguished. In re: Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 A I R 1941 F C 72 ; Megh Raj v. Allah Rakhia A I R 1942 F C 27 ; Megh Raj v. Allah Rakhia A I R 1947 P C 72 and Sri Ram Ram Narain v. State of Bombay A I R 1959 S C 459 ref. D. Narasaraju and Anwarulla Pasha for Appellant. T. Ananta Babu for
Respondent.
OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (COURT OF WARDS), HYDERABAD
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, A. P.
Law: Wealth Tax Act, 1957
Section: 2(e)(i)
Wealth tax------"Begumpet Palace", whether "agricultural land"-"Agricultural lands", meaning and tests of-Wealth Tax Act, 1957, S. 2(e)(i)-Constitution of India, entry 86, List I of Sched. VII. The property "Begumpet Palace" at Begumpet, within the limits of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, consisted of vacant land of about 108 acres and also buildings which were enclosed in compound walls. The land was never ploughed or tilled though it was capable of being used for agriculture. Land revenue was assessed on it by the State Government. All the authorities, the Tribunal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Wealth Tax Officer, held that they are not agricultural lands and hence liable to wealth tax. On reference at the assessee's instance, the matter came up before a Division Bench, which referred the matter to a Full Bench, in view of the apparent conflict between Sarojini Devi v. Sri Kristna A I R 1944 Mad. 401 and Smt. Manyam Meenakshamma v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (1967) 63 I T R 534: Held, by the Full Bench (unanimously): (1) the words "agricultural land" occurring in section 2(e)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act should be given the same meaning as the said expression bears in entry 86 of List I and given the widest meaning ; (2) the said expression not having been defined in the Constitution or in the Wealth Tax Act, it must be given the meaning which it ordinarily bears in the English language and as understood in ordinary parlance ; (3) the actual user of the land for agriculture is one of the indications for determining the character of the land as agricultural land ; (4) land which Is left barren but which is capable of being cultivated can also be "agricultural land" unless the said land is actually put to some other non-agricultural purpose, like construction of building or an aerodrome, runway, etc., thereon, which alters the physical character of the land rendering it unfit for immediate cultivation ; (5) if land is assessed to land revenue as agricultural land under the State revenue law, it is a strong piece of evidence of its character as agricultural land ; (6) mere enclosure…