Law:

Section:

Section 2(e)(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 - Assets - Agricultural land - Assesses owned agricultural land on which there was a tank and 16 standing trees - Assessee had not adduced any evidence to show that agricultural activity was carried on on such land - Whether such land could he treated as agricultural land for assessment year 1969-70, and exempted from wealth-tax - Held, no Facts The assessee owned 53 cents of land in urban area and there was a tank on that property, besides 16 standing trees. The assessee had not adduced any evidence to show that she had carried on agricultural activity on that land. Nevertheless, the Tribunal held that, for the assessment year 1969-70, the land was to be treated as agricultural land within the meaning of section 2(e)(1 )(i), on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the impugned land had not been put to any non-agricultural activity. On reference : Held The Tribunal applied the wrong test. The question was not whether the land had been put to any non-agricultural activity. The question which the' Tribunal ought to have asked itself was whether the land was used for agricultural purposes in the relevant accounting year. Was there any evidence of agricultural activity during that year ? That was the right question which the Tribunal ought to have asked itself. If it had done so, it would have come to the opposite conclusion. The Tribunal also would have found that the assessee did not supply any evidence as regards the age of those trees or as regards agricultural activity at the relevant time in the nature of weeding, tilling, sowing, watering, planting, etc. There was total absence of evidence of agricultural activity during the relevant year or at any other time except the presence of a few trees in the property. The finding of the Tribunal was, therefore, perverse. The land in question could not on the evidence on record be treated as agricultural land. Cases referred to Krishna Iyer v. Addl. ITO [1966] 59 ITR 145 (Ker.), CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SO), CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) [1976] 105 ITR 133 (SC), Kalpaka Oil Mills v. CIT [1986] 160 ITR 604 (Ker.), M.…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492