Case Details

Citation(s)
1970 SLG 345 1970 SLD 345 (1970) 75 ITR 318
Patna High Court
TAX CASE No. 5 OF 1966, dated August 16, 1969
S.C. MISRA, C.J. AND S. WASIUDDIN, J.
Tarkeshwar Prasad, Rameshwar Prasad, Shambhu Sharan and Manindra Nath Verma for the Petitioner. Ugra Singh for the
Respondent.

Syed Rafiqur Rahman

v.

Commissioner of Wealth Tax

Law:

Section:

Section 2(e), of Wealth-tax Act, 1957 - Assets - Assessee's claim that a certain plot of land being agricultural land, its value was not includible in computing net wealth, was rejected - Tribunal dismissed assessee's appeal - Whether mere presence of trees on land would not make it agriculture especially when it was situated in heart of a town and was surrounded by residential buildings - Held, yes - Whether though assessee claimed immunity from liability to tax, he was not absolved from proving by cogent and reliable evidence that said land was actually being used as agricultural land - Held, yes - Whether since no satisfactory evidence was brought on record on this point, Tribunal was justified in holding that land in question was not agricultural land for purposes of Act - Held, yes FACTS For the assessment year 1962-63, the WTO while determining the assessee's total wealth included the value of a land which was claimed by the assessee as agricultural land. The AAC as well as the Tribunal rejected the assessee's appeals. On reference: HELD 'Agricultural land' has not been defined in the Act nor in the Constitution. In the case of CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC), it was held that the word 'agriculture in its primary sense denotes the cultivation of the field and is restricted to cultivation of the land in the strict sense of the term, meaning thereby tilling of the land, sowing of the seeds, planting and similar operations on the land. These are basic operations which require the expenditure of human skill and labour upon the land itself. It was also pointed out in that decision that besides there are other operations which are to be carried on the land and these are subsequent operations and it was held that only if this integrated activity which constitutes agriculture is undertaken and performed in regard to any land then that land can be said to be used for agricultural purposes. The owner might use a vacant piece of land either for cultivation or as a building site, but naturally the character of the land could not be solely dependent on his intention to use the land as such. The question whether the land was agricultural land…
🔒
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