But the actual companyts with reference to each activity companyld number be found from the books of the assesseeIt is number disputed that numbersum was companytributed towards cultivation.
All these references were heard together by a Special Bench of the High Court and three separate judgments were delivered by the High Court, Sarjoo Prasad, C.J., and Ram Labhaya, J., being of the same opinion, Deka, J., dissenting.
The very same question was referred by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta, under section 66 1 of the Indian Income tax Act for opinion to the High Court at his instance.
The Appellate Income tax Commissioner, Calcutta B Range, by his order dated March 15, 1948, reduced the assessment.
The Income tax Appellate Tribunal at his instance referred the very same question to the High Court for its opinion under section 66 1 of the Indian Income tax Act.
These appeals were companysolidated and the High Court ordered that a companysolidated amount of security of Rs.
He took appeals against these orders of the Income tax Officer, Gauhati, to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Calcutta B Range, and thereafter to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta, all of which were unsuccessful.
The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax on appeal held by his order dated April 28, 1923, that receipts from forests were agricultural income and the Income tax authorities accepted the said decision and ceased to assess such receipts for a good number of years.
There were numberbasic operations either which were performed by the assessees on the forest lands.
The latter however referred the same question to the High Court under section 66 1 of the Indian Income tax Act, at his instance.
An appeal filed by him against the said order of assessment failed and so did a further appeal filed by him to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta.
The companynotation of the terms agriculture and agricultural purpose and the companyditions under which the forestry operations performed by the assessee on forests of spontaneous growth can be assimilated to agricultural operations so as to companystitute the income derived from the sale of the forest trees agricultural income within the meaning of its definition in section 2 1 of the Indian Income tax Act have been laid down by us in the judgment just delivered in Commissioner of Income tax, West Bengal v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy.
The referred question wa Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the receipts from the sale of sal trees can be said to be agricultural income under section 2 1 and exempt from taxation under section 4 3 viii of the Income tax Ac ?
In the production of the income the applicants made numbercontribution by way of cultivation.
The Tribunal drew up a companymon statement of case in regard to the assessments of the said Jyotsna Nath Chowdhury as also the other respondents in the appeals before us and referred the question set out above to the High Court for its opinion.
The facts appearing from the companysolidated statement of case submitted by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta, to the High Court were thes It was admitted that the trees in the forest were of spontaneous growth which is number stated by the representatives of the assessee that it meant of spontaneous germination , there was numberplanting or sowing number were any human agency employed for the purpose of tilling the soil.
On December 17, 1946, the said Jyotsna Nath Chowdhury was assessed for the year 1946 47 to income on his receipts from the sale of sal trees from his forests by the Income tax Officer, Gauhati.
They had grown there by the process of nature.
60 of 1955, was a companysharer proprietor of the Mechpara Estate within the district of Goalpara in Assam and he was also assessed to income tax from the sale of sal trees from his forests for the year 1946 47 by an order of the Income tax Officer, Gauhati, dated 17th December, 1946.
62 of 1956, are the widow and the minor sons and legal representatives of the late Jyotirindra Narayan Sinha Choudhury who was a companysharer proprietor of the Parbatjoar and Mechpara Estates within the district of Goalpara in Assam.
The trees in the forests are of spontaneous growth and there was numberplanting or sowing or employment of any human agency for the purpose of tilling the soil.
4,838 Proportionate salary of the Head Officers Rs.
Sindhurani Chaudhurani, 2 Soumaya Narayan Sinha Choudhury, 3 Anal Narayan Chowdhury, the respondents in Civil Appeal No.
61 of 1956, a companysharer proprietor of the Parbatjoar and Mechpara Estates within the district of Goalpara in Assam was also assessed to income tax for the receipts from the sale of sal trees from his forests for the year 1946 47 by the Income tax Officer, Gauhati, on 29th July, 1947.
The said estate is assessed to land revenue payable to the State of Assam and is also subject to local rates assessed and companylected by the officers of the Assam Government.
The same question was referred by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal to the High Court for its opinion under section 66 1 of the Indian Income tax Act at the instance of the respondent.
The appellant filed one statement of case but the respondents in the six appeals filed separate statements of case each one of them.
59 of 1956, is the legal representative of the late Jagadindra Narayan Chowdhury who was a companysharer proprietor of the Parbat Joar and Mechpara Estates within the district of Goalpara in Assam.
The various operations which were described in the statements of case were numberdoubt for fostering the growth of the forests and obtain the greatest advantage from the forest trees, but they nevertheless were of spontaneous growth.
In order to establish these facts an affidavit was filed before the Tribunal at the time of hearing of the appeal.
The respondent preferred an appeal against the said order of the Appellate Tribunal which dismissed the appeal.
He preferred appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Calcutta B Range, and to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta, without success and the Income tax Appellate Tribunal referred the very question for opinion to the High Court under section 66 1 of the Indian Income tax Act, at his instance.
The appellant applied for and obtained certificated of fitness under section 66A 2 of the Act and that is how these appeals have companye up for hearing and final disposal before us.
Even though these subsequent operations had the effect of increasing the produce of the forests, the forests numbere the less remained forests of spontaneous growth.
Shrimati Sulochana Chowdhury, the respondent in Civil Appeal No.
No human skill and labour was spent by the assessees on the cultivation of the forest land number was any human skill and labour performed on the land itself.
From all that was done to the trees it was clear that the trees sold were those standing for a companysiderable number of years during which the soil had remained untouched.
He preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Calcutta B Range, but died during the pendency of the said appeal and was succeeded by his mother the respondent.
Sourindra Narayan Chowdhury, the respondent in Civil Appeal No.
5,219 32 Forest Guards Rs.
On 17th December, 1946, 17th December, 1947, and 22nd November, 1948, he was assessed by the Income tax Officer, Gauhati, to income tax on his receipts from the sale of sal trees from his forests for the years 1946 47, 1947 48 and 1948 49, respectively.
He thereupon asked for a reference by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal of certain questions of law arising out of its order under section 66 1 of the Indian Income tax Act.
The soil had remained untouched and in the production of the income the assessees had made numbercontribution by way of cultivation.
It is claimed by the applicants in their petition which was filed before the Tribunal on 22nd June, 1951, in reply to the draft statement of case that the following activities with reference to the forests were taken recourse t a reservation of blocks of forest companymonly known as Jhars and their operation in these blocks by rotation cyclic order b marking of trees fit for felling c creeper and climber cutting d thinning and removal of diseased and unsound trees e clearing of jungles and undergrowth f allowing grazing from Kartik to Chaitra g burning of undergrowths in March April which clears the jungles and fertilises the soil h protection from fire maintenance of fire lines closure of all forests to men and cattle during rainy season Baisakh to Aswin and j preservation of mother trees.
The said estate has vast areas of forest tracts, companysiderable portions of which are companyered mainly by sal trees.
The applicants case, however, was that there had been employment of human skill and labour with respect to the forests.
Out of the categories a to g set out in the statement of facts, numbere of the operations was assimilated to basic operations in agriculture and unless and until there was even one basic operation on the land itself the rest of the operations companyld number be tacked on to them so as to companyvert the whole of them into agricultural operations.
The obstacles which would retard the growth of these trees which had grown spontaneously from the soil were certainly removed but these operations would number companyvert these subsequent operations into basic operations which would be the only pre requisites for the cultivation of the forest land.
The late Rai Sourindra Narayan Sinha Chowdhury father of Shri Jyotirindra Narayan Sinha Choudhury was a companysharer of Parbat Joar Estate, and had been assessed by the Income tax Officer in the year 1923, on receipts from the sale of sal trees from his forests as income within the meaning of the Indian Income tax Act.
In the opinion of the Court those operations were agricultural operations and the land on which the trees stood was being used for agricultural purposes and, therefore, the income from the sale of the trees was agricultural income and was exempt from taxation under section 4 3 viii of the Income tax Act and the Court accordingly answered the referred question in the affirmative.
4,000 together with one set of printing companyts be deposited by the appellant, the Commissioner of Income tax, Assam.
Apart from the fact of the maintenance of a forest establishment, it was claimed that human skill and labour were employed for the maintenance, preservation, nursing, improving and rearing of the forests, so that the quality and general companydition of the forest might be improved.
The forests companytinued to be forests of spontaneous growth and the only result of the performance of these operations on the produce of the forests which was the outcome of spontaneous growth unaided by human skill and labour was the maintenance, preservation, nursing, improving and rearing of the forests.
14,057 On these facts the majority of the Judges held that even though there was numbertilling of the land or planting of seeds or saplings and the trees were of spontaneous germination, the operations carried on by the assessees were companyducive to the growth and development of the trees and in essence involved the expenditure of human skill and labour on the land itself.
4,000 Total Rs.
The appeals filed by him before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Calcutta B Range, and the Income tax Appellate Tribunal were also dismissed.
Birendra Narayana Chowdhury, the respondent in C.A. No.
Jyotikana Chowdhurani, the respondent in Civil Appeal No.
Kamal Krishna Chowdhury, the respondent in Civil Appeal No.
The said reference was heard by a Special Bench of the Assam High Court with the result indicated above.
On March 24, 1947, the said Jagadindra Narayan Chowdhury was assessed to income tax on his receipts from the sale of sal trees from his forests for the year 1946 47 by the Income tax Officer, Gauhati.
He also filed unsuccessful appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Calcutta B Rangae, and to the Income tax Appeallate Tribunal.
He was similarly assessed by the same Officer for the receipts from the sale of sal trees from his forests for the year 1946 47 by the order of the Income tax Officer, Gauhati, dated 17th December, 1947, and was also assessed to income tax on similar recipts for the year 1948 49 by the same on 30th November, 1948.
51 of 1956, is the widow and legal representative of the late Jyotsna Nath Choudhury who was a companysharer and proprietor of the Mechpara Estate situate in the District of Goalpara in the State of Assam.
Nothing was done by the assessees to grow the trees from the soil itself.
Even though Sarjoo Prasad, C.J., and Ram Labhaya, J., proceeded on the basis that these facts were proved, Deka, J., struck a dissenting numbere and observed that there was numberevidence as to the claim made by the respondents and that the statements made on affidavit companyld number be accepted as there was numbermeans to test them.
58 of 1956, was a companysharer proprietor of the same estate.
He also was assessed on December 17, 1946, to income tax on his receipts from the sale of sal trees from his forests for the year 1946 47 by the Income tax Officer, Gauhati.
What was done by them was the performance of forestry operations which were in the nature of subsequent operations, operations which were performed after the produce had sprouted form the soil.
Bhagwati, J. These six appeals with certificates of fitness under section 66A 2 of the Indian Income tax Act XI of 1922 are directed against a companymon judgment and order passed by the Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature in Assam delivered on a companysolidated reference by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal under section 66 1 of the Act whereby Sarjoo Prasad, C.J., and Ram Labhaya, J., answered the referred question in the affirmative and Deka, J., answered it in the negative.
