He observed that though he gave ample opportunities to the respondent to prove that there was plantation of trees by the estate, numbermaterials were placed in proof of that fact and that neither plantation books number any working plans for timber plantation had been produced.
The reference was heard by Panigrahi, C. J., and Misra, J., who answered it in the negative.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 21, 1955, of the Orissa High Court at Cuttack in Special Jurisdiction Case No.
miles of which 1540 sq.
The estate is of the area of 12,000 sq.
He accordingly held that the forests had grown naturally, and that the income therefrom was assessable to tax.
By its order dated April 9, 1946, the Tribunal accepted this companytention, and directed a fresh enquiry into the facts mentioned in the said letter.
N. Kripal, R. H. Dhebar and D. Gupta, for the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.426 of 1957.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, M. S. K. Sastri and R. Jagannatha Rao, for the respondent.
The respondent is the proprietor of the impartable zamin of Jaipur in Koraput District.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AIYAR, J. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Orrissa in a reference under s. 66 1 of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the point for decision is whether income received by the respondent by the sale of trees growing in his forests is agricultural income exempt from taxation under s. 4 3 viii of the Act.
On this report, the appeal again came up for hearing before the Tribunal.
The respondent took the matter in further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, and there put forward the companytention that the Incometax Officer had failed to take into account a letter of the Dewan dated June 3, 1942, which gave a detailed account of the operations carried on by the estate in the rearing and maintenance of forests and that on the facts mentioned in that letter, his finding that there had been numberplantation of trees was errolieous.
The respondent derives income from the forests by the sale of timber such as teak, salwood, lac, myrabolam, tamarind, cashewnuts and firewood.
179 of 1951.
miles are reserve forest and 100 sq.
The assessee on the other hand seeks to create an impression that there is number a single tree of spontaneous growth, in these forests, and such trees as number companystitute forests have sprung up out of the stumps left by the hillmen as a result of the system of I Podu cultivation adopted by them.
By his 31, 1943, the Income tax order dated January Officer held that the forests in question had number been proved to have been planted by the respondent, that the trees were of spontaneous growth, and that the income therefrom was number within the exemption under s. 4 3 viii and this order was companyfirmed on appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
October 14.
miles, protected forest.
Pursuant to this order, the Income tax Officer again enquired into the matter.
