Case Details

Citation(s)
1967 SLG 126 1967 SLD 126 (1967) 63 ITR 216
Supreme Court of India
CIVIL APPEAL No. 405 OF 1965, SEPTEMBER 30, 1966
J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ
C.B. Agarwala and O.P. Rana, for the Appellant. B.C. Misra, M.V. Goswami and S.S. Shukla, for the
Respondent

State of Uttar Pradesh

v.

Yashpal Singh

Law:

Section:

- Section 6(2)(b)(iv) - UP Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948 - Rule 13 - UP Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1949 JUDGMENT Bhargava, J.-This appeal brought up by special leave arises out of proceedings for assessment of agricultural income-tax under the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948 (U.P. Act No. III of 1949) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The respondent was an agriculturist in the district of Agra, and was assessed to agricultural income-tax for the year 1358, Fasli. The income that came up for assessment included income derived from direct agricultural operations carried on by the respondent himself. In the return filed, the respondent had shown a gross receipt of Rs. 10,899 as the proceeds of sale of all his agricultural produce and had claimed a sum of Rs. 5,769-12-3 as expenses of cultivation. The agricultural income from this source had to be computed under section 6(2)(b) of the Act because of the option exercised by the respondent. The assessing authority did not accept the figures of income given by the respondent and held that the yield from the cultivation was of the value of Rs. 16,421. In calculating the net income assessable, he allowed a margin of 50% for expenses, so that the sum allowed for expenses was Rs. 8,210-8-0 which was deducted from the gross proceeds of sale of the produce. The State Government, through the Collector of Agra, filed an application for revision against this order of the assessing authority before the Board of Revision, Agricultural Income-tax, U.P., urging that the assessing authoritiy had erred in allowing a deduction of the sum of Rs. 8,210-8-0 for expenses of cultivation against the sum of Rs. 5,769-12-3 actually spent and claimed by the respondent in his return. The Revision Board, instead of deciding the question, expressed its opinion on it and referred the following question for the opinion of the Allahabad High Court : "An assessee files a return showing his income from and the expenses of cultivation under section 6 (2)(b) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act. His returns are rejected and the income is determined to be much higher than what has been shown in the returns. Is it open to the assessing…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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