Appeal No 165 of 1954
Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 27 1953 of the Calcutta High Court in Income tax Reference No 35 of 1952
G N Joshi and R H Dhebar for the appellant
Jyotish Chandra Pal and D N Mukherjee for the respondent
May 23
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J
This appeal with certificate of fitness under section 66A2 of the Indian Income tax Act XI of 1922 is directed against the Judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta on a reference under section 661 of the Act
The respondent owns an area of 6000 acres of forest land assessed to land revenue and grown with Sal and Piyasal trees
The forest was originally of spontaneous growth not grown by the aid of human skill and 104 labour and it has been in  existence for about 150 years
A considerable income is derived by the assessee from sales of trees from this forest
The assessment year in which this forest income was last taxed under the Indian Income tax Act was 1923 24 but thereafter and till 1944 45 which is the assessment year in question it was always left out of account
The assessment for 1944 45 also was first made without including therein any forest income but the assessment was subsequently re opened under section 34
In response to a notice under section 222 read with section 34 of the Act the respondent submitted a return showing the gross receipt of Rs 51978 from the said forest
A claim was however made that the said income was not assessable under the Act as it was agricultural income and was exempt under section 43 viii of the Act
The Income Tax Officer rejected this claim and added a sum of Rs 34430 to the assessable income as income derived from the forest after allowing a sum of Rs 17548 as expenditure
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the assessment and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal also was of opinion that the said income was not agricultural income but was income derived from the sale of jungle produce of spontaneous growth and as such was not covered by section 21 of the Act
At the instance of the assessee the Tribunal referred to the High Court under section 661 of the Act two questions of law arising out of its order one of which was Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the sum of Rs 34430 is agricultural income and as such is exempt from payment of tax under section 43viii of the Indian Income Tax Act The Tribunal submitted a statement of case from which the following facts appear as admitted or established   i The area covered by the forest is about 6000 acres trees growing being Sal and Piyasal iiIt is of spontaneous growth being about 150 years old
It is not a forest grown by the aid of human skill and labour 105 iiiThe forest is occasionally parcelled out for the purposes of sale and the space from which trees sold are out away is guarded by forest guards to protect offshoots ivIt has been satisfactorily proved that considerable amount of human labour and care is being applied year after year for keeping the forest alive as also for reviving the portions that get denuded as a result of destruction by cattle and other causes vThe staff is employed by the assessee to perform the following specific operations a Pruning b Weeding c Felling d Clearing e Cutting of channels to help the flow of rain water f Guarding the trees against pests and other destructive elements g Sowing of seeds after digging of the soil in denuded areas
 The Tribunal found that the employment of human labour and skill in items a to f was necessary for the maintenance and upkeep of any forest of spontaneous growth
Regarding item g however it found that the said operation had been performed only occasionally and over a small fraction of the area where the original growth had been found to have been completely denuded
Such occasions were however few and far between the normal process being that whenever a tree was cut a stump of about 6 height was left intact which sent forth off shoots all round bringing about fresh growth in course of time
This went on perpetually unless an area got otherwise completely denuded
The reference was heard by the High Court and the High Court held that actual cultivation of the land was not required and as human labour and skill were spent for the growth of the forest the income from the forest was agricultural income
It accordingly answered the above question in the affirmative
The 14 106 Revenue obtained the requisite certificate of fitness for appeal to this Court and hence this appeal
The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether income derived from the sale of Sal and Piyasal trees in the forest owned by the assessee which was originally a forest of spontaneous growth not grown by the aid of human skill and labour but on which forestry operations described in the statement of case had been carried on by the assessee involving considerable amount of expenditure of human skill and labour is agricultural income within the meaning Of section 21 and as such exempt from payment of tax under section 43viii of the Indian Income tax Act
Section 21 of the Act defines agricultural income and states so far as it is relevant for the purposes of this appeal 1 agricultural income means a any rent or revenue derived from land which is used for agricultural purposes and is either assessed to land revenue in the taxable territories or subject to a local rate assessed and collected by officers of the Government as such  b any income derived from such land by i agriculture or ii the performance by a cultivator or receiver of rent in kind of any process ordinarily employed by a cultivator or receiver of rent in kind to render the produce raised or received by him fit to be taken to market or iii the sale by a cultivator or receiver of rentin kind of the produce raised or received by him in respect of which no process has been performed other than a process of the nature described in sub clause ii           
Section 43 of the Act provides  3 Any income profits or gains falling within the following classes shall not be included in the total income of the person receiving them            viii Agricultural income   107 Even though agricultural income which is exempted under section 4 3 viii of the Act is defined in section 21 as above there is no definition of agriculture or agricultural purpose to be found in the Act and it therefore falls to be determined what is the connotation of these terms
An argument based on entries 14 and 19 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution may be disposed of at once
It was urged that entry No 14 referred to agriculture including agricultural education and research protection against pests and prevention of plant diseases while entry No 19 referred to forests and there was therefore a clear line of demarcation between agriculture and forests with the result that forestry could not be comprised within agriculture
If forestry was thus not comprised within agriculture any income from forestry could not be agricultural income and the income derived by the assessee from the sale of the forest trees could not be agricultural income at all as it was not derived from land by agriculture within the meaning of the definition of agricultural income given in the Indian Income tax Act
This argument however does not take account of the fact that the entries in the lists of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution are heads of legislation which are to be interpreted in a liberal manner comprising within their scope all matters incidental thereto
They are not mutually exclusive
If the assessee plants on a vacant site trees with a view that they should grow into a forest as for example Casuarina plantations and expends labour and skill for that purpose the income from such trees would clearly be agricultural produce
It has to be remembered that even though this demarcation between agriculture and forestry was available in the Lists contained in the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act 1935 no such demarcation existed in the Devolution Rules made under the Government of India Act 1919 and in any event the definition of agri cultural income with which we are concerned was incorporated in the Indian Income tax Acts as early as 1886 if not earlier vide section 5 of the Indian Income tax of 1886
It has also to be remembered that inspite of this demarcation between agriculture and forests in the Constitution taxes on agricultural income are a separate head under entry 46 of List II of the Seventh Schedule and would comprise within their scope even income from forestry operations provided it falls within the definition of agricultural income which according to the definition given under article 3661 means agricultural income as defined for the purposes of the enactments relating to Indian Income tax
The terms  agriculture  and  agricultural purpose not having been defined in the Indian Income tax Act we must necessarily fall back upon the general sense in which they have been understood in common parlance
Agriculture in its root sense means ager a field and culture cultivation cultivation of field which of course implies expenditure of human skill and labour upon land
The term has however acquired a wider significance and that is to be found in the various dictionary meanings ascribed to it
It may be permissible to look the dictionary meaning of the term in the absence of any definition thereof in the relevant statutes
As was observed by Lord Coleridge in R vs Peters 1 I am quite aware that dictionaries are not to be taken as authoritative exponents of the meanings of words used in Acts of Parliament but it is a wellknown rule of courts of law that words should be taken to be used in their ordinary sense and we are therefore sent for instruction to these books
 Cozens Hardy M R also said in Camden Marquis vs IRC 2 It is for the Court to interpret the statute as best it may
In so doing the Courts may no doubt assist themselves in the discharge of their duty by any literary help they can find including of course the consultation of standard authors and reference to wellknown and authoritative dictionaries  1  641
2 1 647
109 Turning therefore to the dictionary meaning of agriculture  we find Webster s New International Dictionary describing it as  the art or science of cultivating the ground including rearing and management of livestock husbandry farming etc
and also including in its broad sense farming horticulture forestry butter and  cheese making etc
 Murray s  Oxford Dictionary describes it as  the science and art of cultivating the soil including the allied pursuits of gathering in the crop and rearing live stock tillage husbandry farming in the widest sense
In Bouvier s Law Dictionary quoting the Standard Dictionary agriculture  is defined as  the cultivation of soil for food products or any other useful or valuable growths of the field of garden tillage husbandry also by extension farming including any industry practised by cultivator of the soil in connection with such cultivation as breeding and rearing of stock dairying etc
The science that treats of the cultivation of the soil
 In Corpus Juris the term  agriculture  has been understood to mean  art or science of cultivating the ground especially in fields or large quantities including the preparation of the soil the planting of seeds the raising and harvesting of crops and the rearing feeding and management of live stock tillage husbandry and farming
In its general sense the word also includes gardening or horticulture
 Bhashyam Ayyangar J in Murugesa Chetti vs Chinnathambi Goundan1 gave the following dictionary meanings of agriculture as culled out from the Century Dictionary and Anderson s Dictionary of Law  The primary meaning of agriculture is the cultivation of the ground The Century Dictionary and in its general sense it is the cultivation of the ground for the purpose of procuring vegetables and fruits for the use of man and beast including gardening or horticulture and the raising or feeding of cattle and other stock Anderson s Dictionary of Law
Its less general and more ordinary signification is the cultivation with the plough and in large areas in order to raise 1 Mad
421423
110 food for man and beast The Century Dictionary or in other words that species of cultivation which is intended to raise grain and other field crops for man and beast Anderson s Dictionary of Law
Horticulture which denotes the cultivation of garden or orchards is a species of agriculture in its primary and more general sense Ramesam J in Panadai Pathan vs Ramasami Chetti 1 referred to the following connotation of agriculture  Wharton s Law Lexicon adopts the definition of agriculture in 8 Edw
VII c 36 as including horticulture forestry and the use of land for any purpose of husbandry etc
In 10 Edw
VII c 8 section 41 it was defined so as to include the use of land as meadow or pasture land or orchard or osier or woodland or for market gardens nursery grounds or allotments etc
In 57 and 58 Viet
c 30 section 22 the term agricultural property  was defined so as to include agricultural land pasture and woodland etc
 These are the various meanings ascribed to the term  agriculture in various dictionaries and it is significant to note that the term has been used both in the narrow sense of the cultivation of the field and the wider sense of comprising all activities in relation to the land including horticulture forestry breeding and rearing of livestock dairying butter and cheesemaking husbandry etc
It was urged on behalf of the assessee that the Court should accept the wider significance of the term and include forestry operations also within its connotation even though they did not involve tilling of the land sowing of seeds planting or similar work on the land
The argument was that tilling of the land sowing of the seeds planting or similar work on the land were no doubt agricultural operations and if they were part of the forestry operations carried on by the assessee the subsequent operations would certainly be a continuation of the same and would therefore acquire the characteristic of agricultural operations
But the 1 Mad
absence of these basic operations would not necessarily make any difference to the character of the subsequent operations and would not divest them of their character of agricultural operations so that if in a particular case one found that the forest was of spontaneous growth even so if forestry operations were carried on in such forests for the purpose of furthering the growth of forest trees these operations would also enjoy the character of agricultural operations
If breeding and rearing of live stock dairying butter and cheese making etc could be comprised within the term agriculture it was asked why should these also be not classed as agricultural operations
Considerable stress was laid on the fact that section 43viii of the Act enacted a provision in regard to the exemption of agricultural income from assessment and it was contended that exemptions should be liberally construed
Reliance was placed on the observations of Vishwanatha Sastri J in Commissioner of Income tax Madras vs K E Sundara Mudaliar 1  Exemption from tax granted by a Statute should be given full scope and amplitude and should not be whittled down by importing limitations not inserted by the Legislature
 Mookerjee J in Commissioner of Agricultural Income tax West Bengal vs Raja Jagadish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb 2 also expressed himself similarly  and the present day view seems to be that where an exemption is conferred by statute that clause has to be interpreted liberally and in favour of the assessee but must always be without any violence to the language used
The rule must be construed together with the exempting provisions which must be regarded as paramount
 He also quoted a passage from The Upper India Chamber of Commerce vs Commissioner of Income tax CP  UP 3  1  271
3  AIR1948 All70 2  438 112  It is needless to observe that as in the present case we are concerned with the interpretation of an exemption clause in a taxing statute that clause must be as far as possible liberally construed and in favour of the assessee provided no violence is done to the language used
 It was also pointed out that  Taxes on agricultural income  formed a head of legislation specified in item 46 of List
II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and should be liberally construed with the result that agriculture should be understood in the wider significance of the term and all agricultural income derived from agriculture or so understood should be included within the category
There was authority for the proposition that the expression  agricultural land  mentioned in Entry 21 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act 1935 should be interpreted in its wider significance as including lands which are used or are capable of being used for raising any valuable plants or trees or for any other purpose of husbandry
see Sarojinidevi vs Shri Krishna Anjanneya Subrahmanyam 1 and Megh Raj vs Allah Rakhia 2
While recognizing the force of the above expressions of opinion we cannot press them into service in favour of the assessee for the simple reason that agricultural income  has been defined in the Constitution itself in article 3661 to mean agricultural income as defined for the purposes of enactments relating to Indian incometax and there is a definition of  agricultural income  to be found in section 21 of the Indian Income tax Act
We have therefore got to look to the terms of the definition itself and construe the same regardless of any other consideration though in so far as the terms  agriculture  and  agricultural purposes  are concerned we feel free in view of the same not having been defined in the Act itself to consider the various meanings which have been ascribed to the same in the legal and other dictionaries
1 ILR 2  62 113 We may also note here the dictionary meanings of the terms Forestry and Cultivation The Shorter Oxford Dictionary Vol1 page 735 gives the meaning of forestry as the science and art of forming and cultivating forests management of growing timber
 Webster s New International Dictionary Vol 1 page 990 gives the following meaning of forestry  Science and art of farming caring for or cultivating forests the management of growing timber
 Webster s New International Dictionary
Vol 1 page 643 while talking of cultivation says that to cultivate means i to prepare or to prepare and use for the raising of crops to till as to cultivate the soil to loosen or break up the soil about growing crop or plants for the purpose of killing weeds etc especially with a cultivator as to cultivate the corn 2to raise or foster the growth of by tillage or by labour and care to produce by culture as to cultivate roses to cultivate oysters
 Whether the narrower or the wider sense of the term agriculture should be adopted in a particular case depends not only upon the provisions of the various statutes in which the same occurs but also upon the facts and circumstances of each case
The definition of the term in one statute does not afford a guide to the construction of the same term in another statute and the sense in which the term has been understood in the several statutes does not necessarily throw any light on the manner in which the term should be understood generally
The decided cases disclose a variety of opinions in regard to the connotation of the terms agriculture and agricultural purposes
 At one time agriculture was understood in its primary sense of cultivation of field and that too for production of food crops for human beings and beasts
This limited interpretation could not be adhered to even though tilling of the land sowing of the seeds planting or similar work on the land were the basic operations the scope of the crops produced was enlarged and all crops raised on the land whether they be food crops or not were included in the produce raised by agriculture
There was however another school of thought 15 114 which extended the term agriculture and included within its connotation not only the products raised by the cultivation of the land but also allied activities which had relation to the land and operations which had the effect of fostering the growth preservation and maintenance as also the regeneration of the products of the land thus bringing within its compass not only the basic agricultural operations but also the further operations performed on the products of the land even though they were not necessarily accompanied by these preliminary basic operations
As against these cases which dealt with these preliminary basic operations and also the further operations either by themselves or in conjunction with the former which of course necessarily involved the expenditure of human skill and labour in carrying out those operations there were instances of products of land which grew wild or were of spontaneous growth without the expenditure of human skill and labour and which it was agreed on all hands could not be comprised within agriculture and the income from which could not fall within the definition of agricultural income
We shall briefly discuss the various cases dealing with these different aspects and try to evolve some principle therefrom which would serve as a guide in the determination of the question before us
Kunhaven Haji vs Mavan 1 was the earliest case in which it was held that a lease of a coffee garden was not an I agricultural lease within the meaning of Transfer of Property Act section 117
The case however concerned itself with the situation where as far as the Court could gather from the Karar the lease was of the coffee plants only
There was no further discussion of the legal position and it may be noted that Shephard J who was a party to this decision stated in the later case of Murugesa Chetti vs Chinnathambi Gounden 2 that he was wrong in the opinion he expressed with regard to a coffee garden in this case
Murugesa Chetti vs Chinnathambi Goundan 2 also was concerned with section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act
The lease there was a lease of land for 1 Mad 98
2 Mad
421423
115 the cultivation of betel and the Court held that such a lease was an agricultural lease falling under section 117
Bhashyam Ayyangar J who delivered the main judgment of the Court discussed the dictionary meanings of the term  agriculture  and stated that in section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act it was used in its more general sense as comprehending the raising of vegetables fruits and other garden products as food for men or beast though some of them may be regarded in England as products of horticulture as distinguished from agriculture
The learned Judge considered the distinction between  agriculture  and  horticulture  and observed   The distinction between agriculture when it is used otherwise than in its primary and more general sense and horticulture is a fine one even in England and in India especially it will be impossible in the case of several products of the land to draw a line between agriculture and horticulture according to English notions
The only practical distinction which I can suggest and one which will give effect to the policy of the Legislature in exempting agricultural leases from the operations of section 107 etc of the Transfer of Property Act is to regard as agriculture as distinguished from horticulture not only all field cultivation by tillage but also all garden cultivation for the purpose chiefly of procuring vegetables or fruits as food for man or beast and other products fit for human consumption by way of luxury if not as an article of diet
 He then discussed the policy of exemptions setting out the observations of Cave J in Ellis  Co vs Hilsel  The very object of this exemption is the wellknown one of favouring agriculture an old object of English Legislation in favour of a very important industry  and stated  This observation of Mr Justice Cave will apply with much greater force in this country where the agricultural industry is more important than in England and is one that is common to wet cultivation 1 116 as to garden and dry cultivation the object of all such cultivation being chiefly to procure food for men and cattle and other products of the soil which are usually consumed by the people as gentle stimulants or by way of luxury
Betel leaf is an article of daily consumption with all classes in this country as tobacco leaf is with most classes and betel vine is generally grown side by side with plantations the products of which are among the chief articles of vegetable food
 The lease in that case being one for the cultivation of betel was therefore held to be agricultural lease and Shephard J agreed with this conclusion revising the opinion which he had expressed earlier in Kunhavan Haji vs Mavan supra
In Raja of Venkatagiri vs Ayyappa Reddy 1 the question was whether land usually fit only for pasturing cattle and not for cultivation ie ploughing and raising agricultural crops was ryoti land though it might have been old waste and a tenant of such land was a ryot and any amount agreed to be paid for pasturing cattle was  rent  within the definitions of section 3 of the Madras Estates Land Act Mad
I of 1908
The Court held that such land was not  ryoti  land inasmuch as it was not fit for ploughing and raising agricultural crops
The ordinary meaning of  agriculture  was taken to be  the raising of annual or periodical grain crops through the operations of ploughing sowing etc Per Sadasiva Ayyar J at page 741
The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Madras vs Zamindar of Singampatti 2 was a reference arising out of the assessment for income tax under Act VII of 1918 of the income derived by the Zamindar of Singampatti from forests and fisheries within the ambit of his Zamindari
The assessee objected to the assessment i on the ground that the income was agricultural income within the meaning of section 4 of the Act and therefore not chargeable to income tax ii that the 1 1913 ILR 38 Mad 738
2 Mad 5 18 FB 117 assessment was illegal as contravening the terms of his permanent sanad for the Zamindari and the provisions of Regulation XXV of 1802
The Court held  that where the peishkush of a permanently settled estate was fixed in commutation not only of the rentals of the cultivated lands but also of all income which might be derived from forests or fisheries both under the terms of the sanad and section I of Regulation XXV of 1802 these incomes were exempt from further taxation by the Government and section 3 of the Income tax Act did not abrogate this exemption
In view of this conclusion the Court did not think it necessary to determine whether income from forests or fisheries came under the definition of  agricultural income
 The Court however pointed out that  a reference to Murray s and Webster s dictionaries shows that the word agriculture  while sometimes used in the narrow sense of the art or science of cultivating the ground is also used in a much wider sense so as to include even  forestry  according to Webster
In which sense it was used by the framers of the Income tax Act would be a matter for determination and to this end it would not be out of place to consider the probable reason for the exemption of agricultural income from income tax
No other reason is suggested than the equity of exempting from further burden income which had already paid toll to the State in the shape of land revenue
 The question therefore whether the income from forests would be  agricultural income  within the meaning of section 4 of the Income tax Act  was thus left open and the decision that income from forests was not liable to income tax was reached under the terms of the Sanad of section I of Regulation No 25 of 1802
Kaju Mal vs Salig Ram1 was concerned inter alia with a field in which tea was grown and the question was whether the land fell within the definition of Cc agricultural income  or  village immoveable property  as given in section 3i and ii of the Punjab Pre emption Act 1905
The Court held that fields planted with tea bushes were fields used for agricultural 1 1919 PR NO
118 purposes and this decision was affirmed by the Privy council in Kaju Mall vs Salig Ram1
It was held that the words  agricultural purposes  in section 2 iii of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act 1900 included the cultivation of tea consequently land which was not occupied as the site of any building in a town or Village and was occupied or let for the cultivation of tea was  agricultural land within the meaning of section 3i of the Punjab Pre emption Act 1905
Emperor vs Probhat Chandra Barua 2 was a case under the Indian Income tax Act and the classes of income derived from permanently settled estates were 1
Income from fisheries
Income from land used for stacking timber
Income from pasturage
 The income from the first two heads was certainly not agricultural income or income derived from land which is used for agricultural purposes within the meaning of sections 2 and 4 of the Act
But income derived from pasturage was held to be agricultural income which could not lawfully be charged with income tax
There was a difference of opinion between Rankin J and Page J in regard to the liability of income from fisheries and income from land used for stacking timber based on the construction of the Permanent Settlement Regulations of 1793
But that is immaterial for our present purposes
What is material is that both the learned Judges were unanimous in their opinion that income from pasturage was income derived from land which is used for agricultural purposes and was therefore within the exemption given by a 43viii to agricultural income as defined by section 21a of the Act
In Kesho Prasad Singh vs Sheo Pragash Ojha 3 the Privy Council held that a grove was not land  held for agricultural purposes  within the meaning of section 70 of the Agra Tenancy Act 1901 affirming the decision of the High Court of Allahabad that it was impossible to hold that that section had any application whatever to such a property as the grove in fact was
11923 ILR 21924 ILR 3 All
831 119 The Commissioner of Income tax Madras vs T Manavedan Tirumalpad 1 was also a decision under the Indian Income tax Act XI of 1922 and the assessee there was assessed by the Income Tax Officer for the year 1928 29 on the amount received by the sale of timber trees cut and removed from the forests
The question was whether these amounts were liable as such to income tax and the Court observed derived from the sale of paddy which is grown on land and the income derived from the sale of timber cut in a forest but the profits earned from the sale of paddy would be assessable to income tax but for the special exemption given to that income in the Incometax Act by reason of its being agricultural income
There is such exemption in the case of income derived from the sale of timber
 There is no further discussion to be found in the judgment which would throw light on the question whether such receipts by the assessee were agricultural income and as such exempt from income tax
The later decision of the Madras High Court in Chandrasekhara Bharathi Swamigal vs Duraisami Naidu 2 however contains an elaborate discussion as to the connotation of the term agriculture 
The case arose under the Madras Estates Land Act Mad
I of 1908 and the question which the Court had to consider was whether growing Casuarina trees ie trees for fuel was an agricultural purpose so as to make the person who held the land for that purpose a  ryot  within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act
The Court held that land held for growing Casuarina trees was not land held for purposes of agriculture and the person holding the land for that purpose was not a  ryot  within the meaning of the Act
While delivering the judgment of the Court Reilly J embarked upon a consideration of what the term  agriculture  meant and came to the conclusion that agriculture could not be defined by the nature of the product cultivated but should be defined rather by 1 Mad 21 SB 2 Mad
120 the circumstances in which the cultivation was carried on
He observed at page 902  I agree with the remark of Shephard J in Murugesa Chetti vs Chinnathambi Goundanl that a man who plants or maintains trees for firewood is not in ordinary parlance an agriculturist
If we take the strict meaning of  agriculture  according to its derivation it means the cultivation of a field the cultivation of an open space as opposed to horticulture the cultivation of a comparatively small enclosed space
The cultivation either of the field in agriculture or of the garden in horticulture cannot be confined I think to any particular product
With great respect I do not agree with the opinion of Bhashyam Ayyangar J in Murugesa Chetti vs Chinnathambi Goundanl that agriculture implies production of things useful as food for men or beast or other products fit for human consumption by way of luxury
That appears to me to be too narrow an interpretation
Still less do I agree with the opinion expressed by Sadasiva Ayyar J in Raja of Venkatagiri vs Ayyappa Reddi that agriculture is confined to the production of grain crops
I can see no reason why the cultivation in open spaces of such useful products as cotton jute flax and hemp should not be agriculture
Indeed I think agriculture cannot be defined by the nature of the products cultivated but should be defined rather by the circumstances in which the cultivation is carried on
In some cases it has been suggested that agriculture is confined to tillage
I think it can easily be shown that agriculture was carried on in this world before ploughs were invented
In the present day in many places cultivation is done with spades and not with ploughs but the planting of timber or firewood trees which are to stand on the land for a considerable number of years forming plantations or woods or forests appears to me to be opposed to the idea of agriculture the cultivation of an open space
It is true that for the purpose of growing trees in a plantation it may be necessary first to prepare the land
1 Mad
42I 423
2 1913 ILR 38 Mad
121 Later on it may be necessary to protect and water the young plants
Still later it may be necessary to thin out the plantation
But when the land is covered with trees which had to stand on it for a number of years sometimes as long as a century during most of which period the land itself is untouched to describe that as agriculture appears to me inappropriate
To my mind it is something very different from the cultivation of a field or of an open space
It may be noticed that in Kesho Prasad Singh vs Sheo Pragash Ojha 1 their Lordships of the Privy Council approved of the opinion expressed by two learned judges of the Allahabad High Court that land let for a grove was not let for an agricultural purpose
It happened that the case then under consideration was one arising under the Agra Tenancy Act
But in that Act there is no definition of agriculture 
Therefore both the learned judges of the Allahabad High Court and their Lordships of the Privy Council were we may take it considering what is the meaning of the word I agriculture  in its general sense
I may mention also that in Commissioner of Income Tax vs Manavedan Tirumalpad 2 a Full Bench of this Court remarked that income from cutting timber was not agricultural income
 It may be noticed that the learned Judge enlarged the connotation of the term agriculture  by having regard to the circumstances in which the cultivation was carried on rather than the nature of the products cultivated and embraced within the scope of the term not merely the production of things useful as food for man or beast or other products fit for human consumption by way of luxury but also such useful products as cotton jute flax and hemp though he stopped short at those products and hesitated to include therein growing of trees in plantation where the land was covered with trees which have to stand on it for a number of years
The last case to be referred in this series is that of Deen Mohammad Mian vs Hulas Narain Singh2 11924 ILR 46 All
2  152
16 122 where it was held that an orchard is an agricultural land
It was observed it The case of an orchard is quite different
Orchard trees ordinarily are and can be presumed to have been planted by men after preparation of the ground which is cultivation and seasonal crops are gathered
Fruit trees also require seasonal attention such as pruning and digging of the soil around the roots and it cannot be said that this ceases to be cultivation merely because the whole tree is not replanted every year  
In my opinion the land in suit is agricultural land it is land from which by preparing the soil and planting and cultivating trees the raiyat expects to enjoy periodical returns in the way of produce for food
 This was a further extension of the idea which had germinated in the opinion expressed by Reilly J in Chandrasekhara Bharathi Swamigal vs C P Duraisami Naidu1 and even plantation of trees in orchards which did not require to be replanted every year was included in the connotation of the term agriculture
A still further extension of the term is to be found in the following observations of Vishwanatha Sastri J in The Commissioner of Income tax Madras vs K E Sundara Mudaliar 2 at p 273  It is a matter of ordinary experience at least in this part of the country that mango cocoanut palmyra orange jack arecanut tamarind and other trees are planted usually in an enclosed land and that these trees do not yield any fruit or crop in the early years of their growth
They remain on the land for a long number of years yielding fruit only after their maturity
There is no reason why the planting rearing watering fencing and protection of such trees and the gathering of their fruits during the annual seasons should not be held to be agriculture
There is some kind of cultivation or prodding of the soil at the inception when the planting is done and subsequently also at intervals
In the case of coffee grown on hill slopes there is no ploughing or tillage as in the 1 Mad
2  271
123 case of wet and dry fields but it cannot be maintained that growing coffee is not an agricultural operation
Coffee and tea plants stand on the soil for many years and their produce is gathered periodically
In the padugai lands or lands lying between the sandy bed and flood bank of rivers plantains are grown in many places in deltaic tracts
Young plants are often brought and planted in pits dug for the purpose in a row with sufficient interspaces
Trenches are dug by the side of a row of plantain trees in order to catch and detain water
The plantain trees last for about two years and from each tree off shoots spring up and grow in place of the parent tree
There is thus a natural replenishment of the plantain garden
It cannot be said that the raising of plantains is not an agricultural purpose
Similarly in the case of sugarcane the plants stand on the land for two years or a little more and there are usually two cuttings
Castor plants stand for some years on the soil and the seeds are periodically gathered in
Bamboo is often planted in enclosed lands by digging pits filling them with sand and manure and then planting the young stalks in a bunch at suitable distances
Watering is done for the first 2 or 3 years
Every year the land surrounding each bamboo cluster is dug with a spade and small earthen ridges are put up so as to catch and retain rain water
Bamboo plants attain maturity in about 3 or 4 years and the thorny branches which grow on the main stem are then fit to be cut off and used for fencing purposes    
I am unable to see why these operations are not agricultural operations
 The cases above noted all of them interpret the term agriculture in its narrower sense though there is a marked progress from the extremely narrow construction put upon it by Bhashyam Ayyangar J in Murugesa Chetti vs Chinnathambi Goundan1 to the somewhat wider connotation thereof adopted by Reilly J in Chandrasekhara Bharathi Swamigal vs CP Duraisami Naidu 2 and by Vishwanatha Sastri J in The Commissioner of Income tax Madras vs K E Sundara 1 Mad
421 423
2 Mad
124 Mudaliar1 It is interesting to note that all throughout these cases runs the central idea of either tillage of the land or sowing of seeds or planting or similar work on the land which invests the operation with the characteristic of agricultural operations and whenever that central idea is fulfilled there is the user of land for agricultural purposes and the income derived therefrom becomes agricultural income
There were on the other hand decisions which interpreted the term agriculture in the wider sense as including all activities in relation to the land even though they did not comprise these basic agricultural operations
King Emperor vs Alexander Allen2 involved the interpretation of the expression land used solely for agricultural purposes in sub section
3 of section 63 of the Madras District Municipalities Act Mad IV of 1884 as amended by the Madras District Municipalities Amendment Act Mad III of 1897 and the Court held that the lands on which potatoes grain vegetables etc were grown as well as pasture land were used solely for agricultural purposes  within the meaning of the sub section
The Court adopted the definition of agricultural land given in the Agricultural Rates Act 59 and 60 Vict Chap
16 section 9  The expression  agricultural land  means any land used as arable meadow or pasture ground only cottage gardens exceeding one quarter of an acre market gardens nursery grounds orchards or allotments but does not include land occupied together with a house as a park gardens other than as aforesaid pleasure grounds or any land kept or preserved mainly or exclusively for purposes of sport or recreation or land used as a race course and also the meaning ascribed to it in Murray s Oxford English Dictionary quoted above and observed  We also note that it is there pointed out that the restriction of the word agriculture to tillage as in the following quotation is rare
The lands were not fields for agriculture but pastures for cattle
We believe that we cannot do better than follow these definitions in 1  271
2 Mad
627 629630
125 attempting to decide what for the purposes of subsection 3 of section 63 of the Municipalities Act are or are not lands used solely for agricultural purposes  
We do not consider that any distinction can be drawn between large and small plots of lands on which roots of grain are cultivated
All such land must be held to be land used solely for agricultural purposes Counsel has urged before us that these so called waste lands are pasture lands and as such should be held to be lands used solely for agricultural purposes If therefore it could be shown that these so called waste lands were in reality pasture grounds or lands used for rearing livestock we should certainly decide that they were lands used solely for agricultural purposes
 The learned Judges there were influenced by the dictionary meaning of the term agriculture as given in Murray s New Oxford Dictionary and understood the term agriculture in the widen sense as including the user of land for rearing live stock also
In Panadai Pathan vs Ramaswami Chetti1 a lease of land was given for growing casuarina trees and the question was whether such a lease was a lease for agricultural purposes within the meaning of section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act
The Court held that it was a lease for agricultural purposes and therefore did not require a registered instrument for its creation
Spence J in the course of his judgment differed from the opinion of Bhashyam Ayyangar J in Murugesa Chetti vs Chinnathambi Goundan 2 that the word agriculture in its more general sense comprehends the raising of vegetables fruits and other garden products as food for man or beast if the learned Judge intended thereby to limit it to the raising of food products
For to so restrict the word would be to exclude flower indigo cotton jute flax tobacco and other such cultivation
He also differed from the opinion expressed by Sadasiva Ayyar J in Seshayya vs Rajah of 1 Mad 710
2 Mad
42I 423
126 Pittapur 1 and Rajah of Venkatagiri vs Ayyappa Reddi 2 that agriculture meant the raising of annual or periodical grain crops through the operation of ploughing sowing etc as such definition would exclude sugar cane indigo tea flower tobacco and betel cultivation from agriculture
He then referred to the dictionary meaning of the term agriculture as given in the Oxford Dictionary and the Bouvier s Law Dictionary set out above and observed  In my opinion agriculture connotes the raising of useful or valuable products which derive nutriment from the soil with the aid of human skill and labour and thus it will include horticulture arboriculture and silviculture in all cases where growth of trees is effected by the expenditure of human care and attention in such operations as those of ploughing sowing planting pruning manuring watering protecting etc
 Ramesam J who delivered a concurring judgment referred to the definition of agriculture adopted in Wharton s Law Lexicon and was of opinion that it would include the use of land as  meadow or pasture or orchard or osier or woodland or for market gardens nursery grounds or allotments etc but would exclude all cultivation of fibrous plants such as cotton jute and linen and all plants used for dyeing purposes such as indigo etc and all timber trees and flowering plants etc
According to him the rearing of a Casuarina plantation requires some preparation of the ground and subsequent care by watering the plants and he was therefore of Opinion that rearing of Casuarina trees was an agricultural purpose within the meaning of section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act
It may be observed however that according to both the learned Judges some preparation of the ground or some expenditure of human care and attention in such operations as those of ploughing sowing planting etc was considered essential for constituting these operations agricultural operations
In Commissioner of Income tax Burma vs Kokine Dairy Rangoon3 the question was whether income 1 1916 31 MLJ 284 1916 MWN 396
3  509
2 Mad
738 127 from a dairy farm and the milk derived from the farm is agricultural income and exempt as such from incometax
Roberts CJ who delivered the opinion  of the Court observed Where cattle are wholly stall fed and not pastured upon the land at all doubtless it is trade and no agricultural operation is being carried on where cattle are being exclusively or mainly pastured and are none the less fed with small amounts of oil cake or the like it may well be that the income derived from the sale of their milk is agricultural income
But between the two extremes there must be a number of varying degrees and the task of the Income tax Officer is to apply his mind to the two distinctions and to decide in any particular case on which side of the fence if I may use the term the matter falls
 He then referred to the case of Lean and Dickinson vs Ball 1 where Lord Cullen had said that he proceeded on the footing that the case which was one dealing with poultry farming was one in which poultry derived sustenance to a material extent from the produce of the ground
This method of approach was on a par with the one adopted by Lord Wright in Lord Glanely vs Wightman2 where it was observed  If authority were needed the provisions just quoted do at least show that profits of occupation  include gains from the animal produce as well as the agricultural horticultural or arboricultural produce of the soil    equally it is obvious that the rearing of animals regarded as they must be as products of the soil since it is from the soil that they draw their sustenance and on the soil that they liveis a source of profit from the occupation of land whether these animals are for consumption as food such as bullocks pigs or chickens or for the provision of food such as cows goats or fowls or for recreation such as hunters or race horses or for use such as draught or plough horses
All these animals are appurtenant to the soil in the relevant sense for this purpose as much as trees wheat crops flowers or roots though no doubt they differ in obvious respects
Nor 1 128 is it now material towards determining what are products of occupation that farming has developed in its use of mechanical appliances and power not only in such matters as ploughing reaping threshing and so forth but in such  ancient methods of preparing its products as making cream butter or cheese
The farmer is still dealing with the products of the soil and Schedule B covers the income
 The House of Lords were dealing with the profits of occupation of land not with income derived from user of land for agricultural purposes and therefore not restricted in their interpretation of the term  occupation  and all these activities which were described therein might as well have been comprised within the scope of the taxing statutes
What we have however to see is whether these activities fall within the connotation of the terms  agriculture  and  agricultural purpose  which are the only terms to be considered for bringing the income derived therefrom within the definition of agricultural income in section 2 1 a of the Indian Income tax Act
In Moolji Sicka  Co In re1 Derbyshire CJ understood the term agriculture in a wider sense as including operations not only on the land itself but on the shrubs which grew on the soil and were according to him a part of the soil
The assessees were manufacturers of biri a kind of cigarette consisting of tobacco wrapped in tendu leaves
The tendu plant was of entirely wild growth and propagated itself without human agency in jungle and waste lands
The assessees had taken several villages on  lease  for plucking the leaves of such plants and the work done by the assessees consisted in pruning the trees and burning the dead branches and dried leaves lying on the ground
The Court held that the profits accruing to the assessees by the sale of tendu leaves was not exempt as agricultural income but to the extent to which pruning of the tendu shrub occurred there was in a technical and legal sense a cultivation of the soil 1 129 in which the shrub grew and therefore so much of the income as was shown by the
assessee to be profit derived from the collection and preparation so as to make them fit to be taken to the market of tendu leaves produced by the pruning of the tendu shrubs was exempt as agricultural income under section 2 1 and section 4 3 viii of the Indian Income tax Act
The learned Chief Justice observed  Cutting back or pruning the wild tendu clearly contributes to the growth of the leaves in that shrub and I am prepared to hold that the pruning of the shrub is a cultivation of the shrub and as the shrub grows in the soil and as a part of it is a cultivation of the soil in a legal and technical sense The word cultivation was here understood by the learned Chief Justice not only in the sense of cultivation of the soil but in the sense of cultivation of the tendu shrubs which grew on the soil and were therefore a part of it
The operations which were performed on the shrubs were certainly not operations performed on the soil itself and the opinion expressed by the learned Chief Justice has certainly given an extended meaning to the term cultivation and used with reference to the soil
It is significant however to observe that cultivation of the soil was considered an essential ingredient which rendered the income derived from the tendu leaves agricultural income within the meaning of its definition in section 21a of the Act
Commissioner of Income Tax Madras vs K E Sundara Mudaliar 1 contains a further extension of this idea where Vishwanatha Sastri J observed at p 274  Pasture land used for the feeding and rearing of livestock is land used for agricultural purposes Emperor vs Alexander Allen 2 
Rearing of livestock such as cows buffaloes sheep and poultry is included in husbandry
These animals are considered to be the products of the soil just like crops roots flowers and trees for they live on the land and derive their sustenance from the soil and its produce Glanely vs Wightman3  Commissioner of Income tax Burma vs 1  27I 3  638
2 Mad
627 629 630
17 130 Kokine Dairy Co 1 It is therefore not legitimate in my opinion to confine the word agriculture to the cultivation of an open field with annual or periodical crops like wheat rice ragi cotton tobacco jute etc
Casuarina is usually raised on dry lands of poor quality and it is usual to find the same land used alternatively for the cultivation of ordinary cereal crops like ground nut gingelly cholam kambu etc and for the raising of Casuarina plantations
The land bears the dry assessment whatever be the nature of the crop raised
 This enlarged connotation of the term agriculture has been tinged by the dictionary meanings ascribed to it in Murray s Oxford Dictionary and the Webster s Dictionary quoted above which understood the term as including the allied pursuits of rearing feeding and management of live stock and also including husbandry farming horticulture etc in the widest sense as also butter cheese making etc
We shall have to consider at the appropriate stage as to how far such enlargement is warranted by the definition of  agri cultural income  as given in section 2 1 a of the Indian Income tax Act
The cases above noted all of them involve some expenditure of human skill and labour either on the land or the produce of the land for without such expenditure there would be no question of the income derived from such land being agricultural income
Where however the products of the land are of wild or spontaneous growth involving no expenditure of human labour and skill there is unanimity of opinion that no agricultural operations were at all involved and there is no agricultural income
In such cases it would be the absence of any such operations rather than the performance thereof which would be the prime cause of growth of such products
The cases bearing on this aspect of the question may be noted
Kaju Mal  others vs Salig Ram 2 is the earliest case where a stretch of natural forest came in for consideration
It was a forest land and it was held to 1  509
2 1919 PR No 131 be agricultural land or land used for purposes subservient to agriculture or for pasture and therefore exempt from pre emption under section 4 of the Punjab Premption Act 1905
There was no discussion of any legal principles in that decision but when we come to the next case of Province of Bihar vs Maharaja Pratap Udai Nath Sahi Deol which was a case under the Bihar Agricultural Income Tax Act Bihar VII of 1938 we find the ratio of these decisions laid down in clear terms
The assessees there derived their income from  Bankar  and  Palkar 
 Bankar  was income derived from the sale of wood from virgin jungles or jungles not actually cultivated and Phalkar was income derived from the fruits of wild jungle trees and bushes
The question was whether this income was agricultural income within the meaning of the term as defined in the Act
Harries CJ who delivered the judgment of the Court observed Bankar  It appears that this head of income was derived from virgin jungles or jungle land not actually cultivated
A few forest guards appear to have been employed to protect the property but it cannot be said that the trees have grown as the result of cultivation
They appear to have grown naturally in the jungles without the intervention of the human agency and in my view the growth of these trees cannot be said to result from the cultivation of the soil
In fact it was the absence of cultivation that permitted the area to develop into a jungle      Phalkar  This is income derived from wild jungle fruits and it cannot be said that the fruit gathered is the result of the cultivation but on the contrary it is the result of the absence of cultivation
Trees and bushes yielding these fruits grow not on cultivated soil but on the land not under cultivation and frequently the more neglected and wild the land is the thicker grow these wild bushes and trees yielding such crop
Practically in all cases the crop is the result of want of cultivation and not the result of cultivation
1 194I  328 132 In my judgment it is not established that the income described as phalkar in these cases is income derived from land used for agriculture or from agriculture and is therefore not assessable to agricultural income tax
 In Raja Mustafa Ali Khan vs Commissioner of Income Tax U P  C P 1 which went up to the Privy Council the Oudh Chief Court held that income from the sale of forest trees growing on land naturally and without the intervention of human agency even if the land was assessed to land revenue was not agricultural income within the meaning of section 21a of the Income tax Act
The Court followed an earlier decision given by it in the case of Maharaja of Kapurthala vs Commissioner of Income Tax C P  U P 2 in which the court had discussed the meaning to be ascribed to the term agriculture and observed at page 93 A fiscal statute should no doubt be construed strictly and if there be any doubt about its construction the subject must be given the benefit
But we do not feel any doubt that the expression land used for agricultural purposes in the Income tax Act does not extend to forests of spontaneous growth where nothing is done to prepare the soil for trees to be planted therein and where the growth of the trees is not fostered by tillage
We should not be justified in giving the taxpayer the benefit of the dictionary definition when it is not disputed that the meaning of the term  agricultural cannot be extended for the purpose of the Income tax Act to all the secondary implications therein suggested
We therefore construe the term in its primary sense
We accordingly hold that income from the sale of forest trees of spontaneous growth growing on land which is assessed to land revenue is not agricultural income within the meaning of section 21a of the Income Tax Act
 Yuvarajah of Pithapuram  Anr
V Commissioner of Income Tax Madras3was also a case where the 1 21945 93
31946 99
133 assessee derived income from forests of spontaneous growth by the sale of wood bark leaves other usufruct of trees minor forest produce and licence fees and from trees that had grown wild in non forest areas
The Zamindari of Pithapuram was a permanently settled estate under the Permanent Settlement Regulation Regulation XXV of 1802 and it was contended that the imposition of income tax in respect of income other than agricultural income derived from a permanently settled estate would not be a breach of Regulation XXV of 1802 relating to permanent settlement
Reliance was placed in support of this position on the decision in Chief Commissioner of Income Tax vs Zamindar of Singampatti 1
It was however held that the case was impliedly overruled by the decision of the Privy Council in Probat Chandra Barua vs King Emperor 2 and the Court proceeded to consider whether income derived from forests of spontaneous growth by the sale of wood bark leaves other usufruct of trees minor forest produce and licence fees and from trees which have grown wild in nonforest areas was agricultural income within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Income tax Act
The Court observed  There is ample authority for holding that income derived from trees which have grown wild is not agricultural income but without the aid of authority we should have no hesitation in saying that to describe it as such would involve a distortion of the meaning of the word agriculture 
and such income was accordingly held to be not agricultural income within the meaning of section 2 1 of the Act
It may be noted that the appellant preferred an appeal to the Privy Council against this decision but the same was dismissed vide Yuvarajah of Pithapuram  Anr
vs Commr
of Income Tax Madras 3 Benoy Ratan Banerji vs Commissioner of Income Tax UP CP  Berar 4 was another case in which the assessee derived income from the sale of timber from 1 Mad 518 FB
2 1930 LR 57 IA 228
3 4 134 the Zamindari on which there had been for many years a number of forest trees khar and wild plants
There was no evidence on the record to show that the growth of the trees in question was the result of any actual culivation by the assessee at all
The various trees which he sold were of spontaneous growth not having grown as a result of actual cultivation
The Court held that in order to come within the definition of  agricultural income  the income had not only to be derived from land which was used for agricultural purposes but such income had also to be derived by the process of  agriculture 
The Court observed that being trees of spontaneous growth to the pro duction of which the assessee had made no contribution by way of cultivation no question could arise either of the land on which they grew being used for agricultural purposes or of the trees themselves and the income they produced being the result of agriculture The Court accordingly held that the income from the sale of forest trees of spontaneous growth growing on land naturally and without the intervention of human agency was not agricultural income within the meaning of section 21a of the Income Tax Act even if such land was subject to a local rate assessed and collected by officers of the Crown as such and such income was not exempt from income tax under section 43 viii of the Act
A decision of the Nagpur High Court in Beohar Singh Raghubir Singh vs Commissioner of Income Tax UP CP and Berar 1 delivered on September 4 1946 but reported in 1948 may be noted here
There also the income in question was derived by the assessee from the sale of forest produce such as timber tendu leaves mohua flowers harranuts etc derived from a forest which was not a cultivated one but was of spontaneous growth
The question was whether such income was agricultural income and as such exempt from taxation under section 43viii of the Indian Incometax Act
The Court considered the dictionary meanings of the term agriculture which included forestry within its compass but observed that the essence of 1 135 agriculture even when it was extended to include forestry was the application of human skill and labour without that it could neither be an art nor a science and that was according to them the determining factor in such class of cases
The Court then referred to the various decisions referred to above and cited with approval the following passage from the Judgment of the Federal Court in Meghraj vs Allah Rakhia 1
Their Lordships confirmed a decision of the Punjab Chief Court to the effect that land used as a tea garden was used for agricultural purposes In the judgment of the Chief Court which was generally approved by their Lordships it was observed that the term agricultural land is used in the Act of 1905 in its widest sense to denote all land which is tilled  
The Chief Court had held that land covered by a natural forest was not agricultural land and this view also would seem to have been confirmed by the Judicial Committee and they further proceeded to observe  We have underlined the word tilled because in our opinion that brings out the distinction which we have sought to draw between an agricultural and a non agricultural purpose
The decisions referred to are Kaju Mal vs Saligram and Kajumal vs Saligram 2
The Court came to the conclusion that it was essential that the income should be derived from some activity which necessitated the employment of human skill and labour and which was not merely a product of man s neglect or inaction except for the gathering in of the spoils
Not only must the assessee labour to reap the harvest but he must also labour to produce it and they accordingly held that the income in question was not agricultural income and was not exempt from taxation under section 43viii of the Indian Income tax Act
We now come to the decision of the Privy Council in Raja Mustafa Ali Khan vs Commissioner of 1 62
2 1919 P R No and Lah
136 Income tax U P Ajmer and Ajmer Merwara 1
It will be recalled that the Oudh Chief Court had in Raja Mustafa Ali Khan vs Commissioner of Income Tax U P  C P 2 decided that income from the sale of forest trees growing on land naturally and without the intervention of human agency even if the land was assessed to land revenue was not agricultural income within the meaning of section 21a of the Indian Income tax Act
The appellant took an appeal to the Privy Council against this decision and the main question for consideration before their Lordships was whether the land was used for agricultural purposes and the income derived therefrom was agricultural income
Their Lordships of the Privy Council observed that the income in question  was derived from the sale of trees described as forest trees growing on land naturally and the case has throughout proceeded upon the footing that there was nothing to show that the assessee was carrying on any regular operations in forestry and that the jungle from which trees had been cut and sold was a spontaneous growth
Upon those facts the question is whether such income is within section 21a of the Act rent or revenue  or alternatively  whether such income was within section 21b income derived from such land by agriculture
It appears to their Lordships that whether exemption is sought under section 21a or section 21b the primary condition must be satisfied that the land in question is used for agricultural purposes the expression  such land in b
refers back to the land mentioned in a and must have the same quality
It is not then necessary to consider any other difficulty which may stand in the way of the assessee
His case fails if he does not prove that the land is used for agricultural purposes
 Upon this point their Lordships concur in the views which have been expressed not only in the Chief Court of Oudh but in the High Court of Madras see Yuvarajah of Pithapuram vs 1 2 137 Commissioner of Income Tax Madras 1 and the High Court of Allahabad see Benoy Ratan Banerji vs Commissioner of Income Tax UP CP  Berar2 and elsewhere in India
The question seems not yet to have been decided whether land can be said to be used for agricultural purposes within the section if it has been planted with trees and cultivated in the regular course of arboriculture and upon this question their Lordships express no opinion
It is sufficient for the purpose of the present appeal to say 1 that in their opinion no assistance is to be got from the meaning ascribed to the word agriculture in other statutes and 2 that though it must always be difficult to draw the line yet unless there is some measure of cultivation of the land some expenditure of skill and labour upon it it cannot be said to be used for agricultural purposes within the meaning of the Indian Income tax Act
In the present case their Lordships agree with the High Court in thinking that there is no evidence which would justify the conclusion that this condition is satisfied
 It may be noted that the Privy Council also proceeded upon the footing that there was nothing to show that the assessee was carrying on any regular operations in forestry and these observations are patient of argument that if any regular operations in forestry had been carried on the land they might have made a difference to the result
Their Lordships also did not express any opinion on the question whether land can be said to be used for agricultural purposes within the section if it has been planted with trees and cultivated in the regular course of arboriculture
They were however definite in their opinion that unless there is some measure of cultivation of the land some expenditure of skill and labour upon it the land cannot be said to be used for agricultural purposes within the meaning of the Act
Agricultural operations are thus defined by them to be operations where there was some measure of cultivation of the land some expenditure of skill and labour upon it
If these conditions were satisfied in regard to any particular land then 1  99
2  18 138 such land can be said to be used for agricultural purposes and the income derived therefrom constitute agricultural income within the meaning of section 21a of the Act
The term agriculture for the purposes of the Indian Income Tax Act was thus in effect defined by their Lordships to mean some measure of cultivation of the land and some expenditure of skill and labour upon it and unless the operations whether they be agricultural operations or forestry operations conformed with those definitions they could not be styled agricultural operations so as to constitute land on which they were performed land used for agricultural purposes
One should have thought that this decision of the Privy Council would put an end to all controversies with regard to the connotation of the term  agriculture  and  agricultural purposes 
That was however not to be
The words used by their Lordships in their judgment were cryptic and the controversy arose immediately thereafter as to whether  some measure of cultivation of the land and some expenditure of skill and labour upon it were used by them as cumulative or in the alternative
Considerable ingenuity was exercised in determining what were regular operations in forestry and whether they could be assimilated to agricultural operations which could have the effect of constituting the land upon which they were performed land used for agricultural purposes within the meaning of the Indian Income tax Act so that income derived therefrom could fall within the definition of agricultural income contained therein
The first case which came up for consideration after the above decision of the Privy Council was the case of Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax West Bengal vs Raja Jagadish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb 1 before the Calcutta High Court
The assessee was the Zamindar of Chilkigarh in the district of Midnapore the western part of which contained jungle mahal
The income in question was derived from the sale of Sal trees which grew in the forest
The forest was not an uncared for virgin forest
The assessee maintained a staff of one forester 6 guards and 24 Chaukas to look after the 1  438
139 forest and for the proper cultivation of the same
The Sal trees were generally sold off in blocks when about 15 years old
Annually blocks of about 1000 acres were sold up
All the trees in the blocks sold up were cut down by the purchasers for sale as fuel and house posts
During the rainy season from the stumps of the trees cut down new shoots come out which grew into mature trees in 15 years to be cut down again
In order to prevent damage to the young shoots in the early stages of their growth the areas cut down were closely guarded for one year at least from the time when the block in question had been completely denuded of trees in order to keep cattle and men off from the lands so that they may not damage the young growing shoots
In order to promote the growth of shoots the ground was also kept free from undergrowth jungle
This was not cleared at the assessee s expense but the villagers were allowed to clear the grounds of the undergrowth and take the same away free of cost
The existing Sal trees in the forests and the Sal trees which had been sold off in 1350 BS had been grown in the same manner as described above
From the above facts it was clear that human care and skill had been utilised for promoting the growth of the Sal trees from which the income was derived in 1350 BS
The Court discussed the dictionary meaning of the term  agriculture  and following the decision of the Privy Council in Raja Mustafa Ali Khan vs Commissioner of Income Tax UP Ajmer  Ajmer Merwaral came to the conclusion that income from a virgin forest or forests of spontaneous growth was not agricultural income
The view that the tilling of the soil was the sine qua non for bringing a pursuit within the term agriculture was also held to have been exploded and it was observed at p 440  Whether a particular forest is one of spontaneous growth or not has to be decided on one important consideration as indicated by the Judicial Committee in that decision ie whether there has been I some expenditure of skill and labour upon it  1 1948 16 1LR 330
140 Reliance was placed upon the further observations of the Privy Council that whether there were  any regular operations in forestry  would be a material fact for consideration and it was observed  To put it in another form the introduction of human agency and the application of human efforts would be the criteria for consideration and after discussing several cases on the subject the Court observed at p 441   On a careful analysis of the reasons given by the learned Judges in the various decisions referred to above it will be apparent that the facts of each particular case must be considered for determining whether there has or has not been sufficient application of human efforts before it can be determined whether the income from a particular forest is agricultural or otherwise
 On the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal in the case before them the Court was of opinion that the forest in question was not either a virgin forest or containing trees which grew spontaneously and naturally without any human intervention whatever
The circumstance that there was felling of the trees the new shoots appearing during the rainy season without any human intervention guarding of the new shoots from either being trampled under foot or being browsed by animals and the removal of undergrowth of fallen leaves were considered regular operations in forestry in the forests in question which required the application of human efforts sufficient to include them under the head agricultural income
It was further observed   If the view of the Judicial Committee were to exclude all kinds of income from the category of agricultural income unless there was actual cultivation of the soil reference to regular operations of forestry would have been unnecessary
Not that there must always be  some measure of cultivation of the land  and  some expenditure of skill and labour upon it  but that the proof of either would be sufficient to bring the case within either clause a or b of section 21 of 141 the Act
 Regular operations in forestry  do require expenditure of skill and labour upon the land on which the forest grows  The Court therefore came to the conclusion that in the special circumstances as disclosed in the case there were regular operations in forestry and the income derived from forests in question was agricultural income within the meaning of section 2 1 a of the Bengal Agricultural Income tax Act 1944
Jyotirindra Narayan Sinha Choudhury vs The State of Assam 1 arose under the Assam Agricultural Income tax Act 1939 and the question for the consideration of the Court was whether the amounts realised by the assessee from the sale of Sal tree  growing in the forest was agricultural income within the meaning of section 2 1 of the Act
There was no evidence to show that these Sal trees were of spontaneous growth
Even though the possibility of the forests originally having been of spontaneous growth was recognised it was an admitted fact that forest trees were protected and fostered in growth by the application of human labour and skill
In these forests operations  in forestry such as clearing jungles creepers and climbers thinning by removal of less healthy trees from thickly grown areas removal of unsound crooked and diseased trees burning of leaves to fertilise the ground cutting of trees at special heights reservation of blocks by turns and their operation in cyclic order preservation of mother trees for the spread of seed protection of forests from fire etc were regularly carried on and regular operations were thus being undertaken for their growth preservation and regeneration
The Court held that as extensive operations in forestry were employed in the forest of Sal trees the income from the sale of such trees would be agricultural income as defined in the Assam Agricultural Income tax Act
In arriving at this conclusion the Court relying on the various dictionary meanings of the term agriculture  observed at p 390 1 142  in spite of the diversity as to the scope and purpose of agriculture as revealed by the different definitions there is one feature which is essentially common to all of these
This is the application of human skill and labour without which there can be no agriculture
 The Court then referred to the decision of the Privy Council in Raja Mustafa Ali Khan vs Commissioner of Income Tax1 and after quoting the passage from the judgment above referred to proceeded to observe   Their Lordships have not laid down that some measure of cultivation is absolutely necessary before it can be said that land is used for agricultural purposes
In fact  some measure of cultivation  is placed on a par with  some expenditure of skill and labour 
If either of the two conditions exists the land could be said as being used for agricultural purposes
Tillage or actual cultivation would not in their view be an essential pre requisite of  agriculture  in its wider implication
 After referring to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Hedayat Ali vs Kamalanand Singh2 and Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax vs Jagadish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb 3 the Court observed  The review of the authorities considered above leads to the conclusion that purpose within the meaning of the Assam Act can be agricultural even if its achievement does not involve actual cultivation of the soil
In the words of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of receipts from the sale of forest trees the income would be agricultural if there is some expenditure of skill and labour upon it
Regular operations in forestry necessarily involve expenditure of skill and labour
Where therefore such operations take place the income from the sale of trees in the forest would be within the ambit of agricultural income as defined in the Assam Act In Pratap Singh Balbeer Singh vs Commissioner of Income Tax U P C P  Berar 4 however the 11948 21913 17 CLJ 411
31949  438
41952 143 High Court of Allahabad struck a different note
The assessee there derived the income from the sale of forest trees growing on land naturally and spontaneously without the intervention of any human agency but carried on forestry operations working the forest for at least some time on scientific lines in accordance with a scheme of making profits
There was a regular working plan and the assessee was deriving regular income from the forest and spending money to increase the profit
The Court held that the  agriculture  and  agricultural purposes  with reference to land clearly implied that some operations must be carried on on the land itself human skill and labour should be used for the purpose of ploughing the land manuring it planting the trees or some similar process and that mere weeding care and preservation of forest trees which grew spontaneously were not operations on the land which were necessary to constitute the process a process of agriculture
In the course of the judgment the Court interpreted the above passage from the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Raja Mustafa Ali Khan vs Commissioner of Income Tax 1 a  under  It is quite clear that their Lordships were of the view that for income to be agricultural income the essential element that must exist is that there should be some measure of cultivation of the land or  some expenditure of skill and labour upon it
The language used by their Lordships of the Privy Council shows that the expenditure of skill and labour must be upon the land and not merely oil the trees which are already growing on it as a result of spontaneous growth Mere regeneration and preservation of trees could not be said to be expenditure of human skill and labour upon the land itself and the land could not under the circumstances be held to be used for agricultural purposes nor could it be held that any process of agriculture was being carried on
The Court observed that planned and scientific exploitation of a forest of spontaneous growth though it might yield 1 144 regular income would not be income from agriculture as no operations were carried out and no human skill and labour was expended in such a case on the land itself
Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy vs Commissioner of Income Tax West Bengal 1 the judgment under appeal before us here struck a middle path
The Tribunal had found that except the sowing of seeds the operations carried out though equally necessary for the maintenance and upkeep of any forest of spontaneous growth did not involve such expenditure of human labour and skill as to constitute them operations in agriculture
The sowing of seeds were  few and far between  and the normal process by which the forest grew again after a part of it had been cut down was by the growing out off shoots from the stumps left the operations were therefore in the main only operations for the  maintenance preservation nursing and rearing  of the forest
It was urged before the High Court on behalf of the assessee that the exemption from agricultural income tax determined in Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax West Bengal vs Raja Jagadish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb2 covered the case and it was submitted that the facts here were if at all far stronger in favour of the assessee
The decision of the Privy Council in Raja Mustafa Ali Khan vs Commissioner of Income Tax UP Ajmer and Ajmer Merwara 3 was considered and the Court observed at p 87  I do not think that when the Privy Council said that there must be some measure of Cultivation on the land some expenditure of skill and labour upon it  their Lordships intended to say that the expenditure of skill and labour must always be in the form of cultivation
The word or introduced by the Allahabad High Court between the two phrases does not occur in the original but I think it is implied
The idea it seems to me is that if the land has been left to the forces of nature to grow what products such forces could there is no agriculture and there can be 1  87
2 1049  438
3 145 SUPREME COURT REPORTS agriculture only if the labour and skill of man has operated on the land to cause or aid the growth of certain products
All that is necessary is that the land should be actively exploited with a view to procuring growth or better growths from the soil but it does not seem to be also necessary that the exploitation should be by tillage
 The Court accordingly came to the conclusion that even though tillage was thus not essential human labour and skill must be expended on the land itself and not merely on the growth from the land
When income is derived from the natural growths from the land it is derived from land but not derived from land by the process of agriculture
It is derived from land by agriculture only when the land is subjected to the labour and skill of man whether in the form of cultivation or otherwise in order to produce or the improvement of the produce which yields the income
On the facts before them the learned Judges were of opinion that if forest of natural growth was taken over and then the land was regularly weeded and cleared if it was supplied with moisture necessary for the nourishment of the trees by the cutting of channels across it and by the distribution of rain water through them and if the land was dug and sown with seeds whenever bare patches appeared and while all this was done if elaborate subsidiary arrangements were also maintained for the protection of the trees and the tending of new shoots springing from the stumps of old trees cut down till they themselves grew into new trees it might well be said that operations in forestry involving agricultural operations were carried on on the forest land and that income derived from the land was derived from agriculture
Sir Kameshwar Singh vs Commissioner of Income tax Bihar  Orissa 1 which is the subject matter of CA Nos 11 2 to II 7 of 1956 before us also was a case under the Indian Income tax Act XI of 1922
It was found by the Appellate Tribunal that the Sal and ebony trees which grew in the forest were conserved by allowing each a circle of 15 feet that there was cutting down 1  19 146 of the trees and jungles which fell within that circle leaving sufficient space for growth and that forest conservancy staff was maintained to look after the forest
The Court construed the observations of the Privy Council in Raja Mustafa Ali Khan s case 1 to mean that  in order to show that an income is agricultural income within the meaning of the definition it must be found that the land itself was cultivated and that there was some expenditure of skill and labour upon it The Court held that even conceding that the two conditions laid down by the Privy Council in Raja Mustafa Ali Khan s case were to be read as alternative conditions there was no material on which to hold that there was any expenditure of skill and labour upon the land and therefore the income from the sale of forest trees was not agricultural income
In Jyotikana Chowdhurani vs Commissioner of Income Tax Assam 3 which is also under appeal before us in Civil Appeals Nos 57 to 62 a Special Bench of the Assam High Court considered whether income derived by the assessees from the sale of trees of spontaneous growth where there was no planting or sowing or employment of any human agency for the purpose of tilling the land but operations in forestry were carried on by the assessee involving considerable expenditure of human skill and labour was agricultural income within the meaning of section 2 1 a of the Indian Income Tax Act
The majority of the Court consisting of Sarjoo Prasad CJ and Ram Labhaya J Deka J dissenting held that even though there was no tilling of the land or planting of seed or saplings and the trees were of spontaneous germination the operations carried on by the assessees were conducive to the growth and development of the trees and in essence involved the expenditure of human skill and labour on the land itself
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 43viii of the Income tax Act
1 2  439 461
147 Sarjoo Prasad CJ explained the test laid down in Raja Mustafa Ali Khan vs Commissioner of Incometax1 in the manner following  The contention of Mr Iyengar is that the expression some expenditure of skill and labour upon it is used merely in further clarification of the expression cultivation of the land and therefore all  that their Lordships held was that cultivation of the land was necessary
I do not concede that the word cultivation is necessarily synonymous with ploughing or tillage
But even if it were I am unable to accept the argument for the simple reason that if precision is the hallmark of Privy Council decisions as I think it is then their Lordships would have stopped short with the phrase some measure of cultivation of the land
This in itself was quite expressive and no further expressions were needed to clarify the matter
Therefore when they proceeded to add after a comma the phrase some expenditure of skill and labour upon it they evidently intended to signify something more than mere cultivation
There is of course no conjunctive phrase between the two expressions but in the context the meaning seems to be plain Ram Labhaya J expressed himself in the test laid down by the Privy Council in these words  A test however was laid down for finding out when land may be said to be used for agricultural purposes
The test requires that there must be some measure of cultivation of the land some expenditure of skill and labour upon it
It has however to be borne in mind that their Lordships when stating the facts did point out that the case had proceeded on the footing that there was nothing to show that the assessee was carrying on any regular operations in forestry
This statement has an important bearing on the inter pretation of the test
Such operations in forestry are carried on in forests
They involve the use of human labour and skill on the soil
They aim at stimulating growth and could easily satisfy the requirements of the 1 148 test evolved by their Lordships
Due importance therefore has to be given to the absence of operations in forestry in Raja Mustafa Ali Khan s Case 1 when interpreting the test laid down therein
 Vikram Deo Varma vs Commissioner of Income tax Bihar  Orissa 2 is the last case of this series
The assessee derived income from extensive forest areas in the impartible estate of which he was proprietor
Over several decades the whole of the forest area had been subjected by hill tribes to a process of podu cultivation setting fire to  the trees and cultivating the forest lands and raising crops thereon so that it was impossible to say that there was any virgin forest left
Through a huge forest establishment considerable amount of human labour and skill was spent i in fostering the growth of trees and preserving them from destruction by men and cattle ii in cultivation of the soil by felling and burning trees from time to time iii in planned exploitation of trees by marking out the areas into blocks iv in systematic cutting down of trees of Particular girth and at particular heights v in planting new trees where patches occur and vi watering pruning dibbling and digging
The Tribunal had held that as there was no forest cultivation or tilling as such the income was not due to agricultural operations and therefore not exempt under section 43viii of the Indian Income Tax Act
In the course of the judgment the learned Judges referred to the observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Raja Mustafa Ali Khan s Case 1 but observed that their Lordships did not lay down what the measure of that cultivation should be or what the nature of skill and labour expended should be in order to bring the operations within the meaning of the expression  agricultural purposes  as used in the definition section
The question to be determined in each case should therefore be whether the land out of which the rent or revenue was derived was used for  agricultural purposes
 Unless the land was subject to some measure of cultivation or there was some expenditure of human skill and labour on it in order to 1 2 149 derive the rent or revenue the purpose would not be agricultural
It was observed that the cultivation was not mere tilling but the science and art of cultivating the soil may depend upon the nature of the soil the atmosphere and various other factors
It was therefore idle to regard tilling  as the sole or indispensable test of agriculture
On the facts before it the Court held that the operations carried on by the assessee through the forest establishment showed that there had been both cultivation of the soil as well as the application of human skill and labour upon the land as well as on the trees themselves and that therefore the income derived from the forest was exempt from taxation under section 43 viii of the Indian Income tax Act
Before parting with these cases it may be apposite here to note the following observations of Vishwanatha Sastri J in Commissioner of Income Tax Madras vs KE Sundara Mudaliar 1 at page 277  In Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax vs Raja Jagdish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb 2 it was held by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court that income derived from the sale of sal trees growing spontaneously in forest and not planted by man was  agricultural  income within the meaning of section 21 of the Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act
There was no digging or ploughing of the land nor planting of trees but there were  operations in forestry  such as guarding the forest trees to keep away cattle and allowing leaves and undergrowth to be removed by people of the locality
There was no breaking up of the soil no sowing or planting or watering or fencing
Whether the decision is correct or not can only be authoritatively declared by the Supreme Court of India
It seems to rest on an undue extension of the principle laid down by the Judicial Committee in Raja Mustafa Ali Khan s Case3 and goes much further than our decision in the present case
 It appears from the above survey that there has been a divergence of opinion amongst the various 1 271
2  438
3 150 Courts not only in regard to the connotation of the terms agriculture  and agricultural purposes but also in regard to the nature of forestry operations performed in the forest which can be styled agricultural operations so as to constitute the land used for agricultural purposes within the definition of agricultural income as given both in the Indian Income tax Act and in the several Agricultural Income Tax Acts passed by the various States
It may be noted at the outset that the definition of agricultural income given in section 21 of the Indian Income tax Act is in identical terms with the definitions of that term as given in the various Agricultural Income tax Acts passed by the several States
It will be idle therefore to treat Taxes on Agricultural Income which fall within the legislative competence of the State Legislature as having no relation at all to the corresponding provisions of the Indian Income tax Act
Once it is determined that the income in question is derived from land used for agricultural purposes by agriculture it would be agricultural income and as such exempt from tax under section 43viii of the Indian Income tax Act and would fall within the purview of the relevant provisions of the several Agricultural Income tax Acts passed by the various States
The result of this determination would be that the assessee would not be liable to assessment under the Indian Income tax Act but he would have to pay the Agricultural Income tax which would be levied upon him under the relative Agricultural Income tax Acts
The only enquiry which would therefore be relevant is whether the income in question is agricultural income within the terms of the definition thereof and that would have to be determined in each case by the Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the particular case before it
In order that an income derived by the assessee should fall within the definition of agricultural income two conditions are necessary to be satisfied and they are i that the land from which it is derived should be used for agricultural purposes and is either assessed for land revenue in the taxable territories or is subject 151 to local rates assessed and collected by the officers of the Government as such and ii that the income should be derived from such land by agriculture or by one or the other of the operations described in cls
ii and iii of section 2 1 b of the Indian Income tax Act
It was at one time thought that the assessment of the land to land revenue in the taxable territories was intended to exempt the income derived from that land from liability for payment of income tax altogether and that theory was based on the assumption that an assessee who was subject to payment of land revenue should not further be subjected to the payment of income tax because if he was so subjected he would be liable to pay double taxation
It is interesting to note at this stage the genesis of the provision exempting agricultural income derived from the lands assessed to land revenue as understood by the Courts
Vishwanatha Sastri J in this context observed in the Commissioner of Income Tax Madras vs
KESundara Mudaliarl at page 270 I shall briefly advert to the genesis of the provision exempting agricultural income derived from lands assessed to land revenue as I consider that the subject matter with which the Legislature was dealing and the facts existing at the time with respect to which the legislation was made are legitimate topics for consideration in ascertaining the object and scope of the exemption from income tax conferred on agricultural income
This exemption it would be noticed has been a persistent feature of the Income tax legislation of this country from 1867 onwards and nothing like it is found in the English Income Tax Acts
Even at a time when there was no provision like Section 100 of the Government of India Act 1935 with Federal and Provincial Lists and there was no incompetency on the part of the Central Legislature to levy a tax on agricultural income the Income Tax Acts passed from time to time by the Central Legislature including the existing Act of 1922 exempted from income tax the agricultural income of land assessed to public revenue
1  271
152 This exemption was granted for no other reason than the justice and equity of exempting from further burden income which had already paid its toll to the State in the shape of land revenue either as a permanently fixed peishkush under Regulation No XXV of 1802 or as an assessment periodically fixed under the ryotwari settlement
Under what may be called the common law in India the State had the immemorial prerogative right to collect a share of the produce of the land from its owner the latter having the full right to enjoyment of the land and its produce subject only to the aforesaid contribution to the State
Land revenue is collected annually from the proprietor of the land and is presumably exigible from the income of the land
Cash payment in lieu of a share of the produce due to the State was substituted long ago to facilitate collection of revenue
Income derived from the produce of the land having been subjected to the payment of the annual land revenue it was thought inequitable to subject the same income again to annual income tax
Hence the exemption of the agricultural income of assessed lands or lands whose revenue had been remitted either in whole or in part as in the case of the inams
Mines minerals and quarries having been reserved by the State at any rate in respect of lands other than those comprised in a permanently settled estate income derived from such sources was not exempted from income tax
The revenue assessment was based on the quality of the soil and the income derived from the produce of the lands and therefore the exemption from income tax was limited to agricultural income derived from assessed lands
Such is the reason for exemption from income tax of agricultural income
 Whatever may have been the genesis of the exemption of agricultural income from income tax the liability to pay land revenue or fixed peishkush under Regulation XXV of 1902 was not considered by Rankin J as a deterrent against the levy of incometax in appropriate cases even on certain classes of income derived from the permanently settled estates if that was the clear intention of the legislature
The 153 learned Judge observed in Emperor vs Probhat Chandra Barua 1 Some reference was made at the bar to the practice of the Revenue Authorities since 1886 as regards fisheries in permanently settled estates but there is no agreement as to what that practice if there be any practice has been
Assuming that it would have been open to us to place some degree of reliance upon an interpretation settled by practice as contemporanea expositio we are in fact without any such assistance
 Some reference was also made to what has been called a presumption against double taxation 
In Manindra Chandra Nandi vs Secretary of State 2 royalties from a coal mine were held liable both to cess under the Cess Act 1880 and to income tax under the Act of 1886 but it was said that it may be considered that courts always look with disfavour upon double taxation and Statute will be construed if possible to avoid double taxes
 Reference was made to certain dicta of American Courts and to the English case of Carr vs Fowle 3 But the only observation in this case was to the effect that the statute presumably did not intend that a vicar should in effect pay the same tax land tax twice on the same hereditament
This is plain enough
Thus the income tax is one tax and income assessed under one schedule cannot be assessed all over again under another
That there is any legal presumption of a general character against  double taxation  in any wider sense is a proposition to which I respectfully demur as a principle for the construction of a modern statute
In Manindra Chandra Nandi vs Secretary of State 2 it did not avail to cut down clear  though absolutely general language
 This view of Rankin J was upheld by the Privy Council in Prabhat Chandra Barua vs King Emperor4
In the later case of Yuvarajah of Pittapuram vs Commissioner of Income Tax Madras 5 the Privy Council held that the imposition of Income tax in respect of income derived from the permanently settled estate 1 Cal 504
2 Cal
257 287
3 4 1930 LR 57 IA 228
5 20 154 would not be a breach of the Madras Permanent Settlement Regulations No XXV of 1802
The assessment of land to land revenue or its being subject to local rates assessed and collected by the officers of the Government as such is merely an indication that the land is an agricultural land as distinguished from land which can be used for agricultural purposes but carries the matter no further
We have therefore to consider when it can be said that the land is used for agricultural purposes or agricultural operations are performed on it
Agriculture is the basic idea underlying the expressions agricultural purposes and agricultural operations and it is pertinent therefore to enquire what is the connotation of the term agriculture
As we have noted above the primary sense in which the term agriculture is understood is agar field and cultra cultivation ie the cultivation of the field and if the term is understood only in that sense agriculture would be restricted only 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
They would be the basic operations and would require the expenditure of human skill and labour upon the land itself
There are however other operations which have got to be resorted to by the agriculturist and which are absolutely necessary for the purpose of effectively raising the produce from the land
They are operations to be performed after the produce sprouts from the land eg weeding digging the soil around the growth removal of undesirable under growths and all operations which foster the growth and preserve the same not only from insects and pests but also from depredation from outside tending pruning cutting harvesting and rendering the produce fit for the market
The latter would all be agricultural operations when taken in conjunction with the basic operations above described and it would be futile to urge that they are not agricultural operations at all
But even though these subsequent operations may be assimilated to agricultural operations when they are in conjunction with these basic operations could it be said that even 155 though they are divorced from these basic operations they would nevertheless enjoy the characteristic of agricultural operations  Can one eliminate these basic operations altogether and say that even if these basic operations are not performed in a given case the mere performance of these subsequent operations would be tantamount to the performance of agricultural operations on the land so as to constitute the income derived by the assessee therefrom agricultural income within the definition on that term  We are of opinion that the mere performance of these subsequent operations on the products of the land where such products have not been raised on the land by the performance of the basic operations which we have described above would not be enough to characterise them as agricultural operations
In order to invest them with the character of agricultural operations these subsequent operations must necessarily be in conjunction with and a continuation of the basic operations which are the effective cause of the products being raised from the land
It is only if the products are raised from the land by the performance of these basic operations that the subsequent operations attach themselves to the products of the land and acquire the characteristic of agricultural operations
The cultivation of the land does not comprise merely of raising the products of the land in the narrower sense of the term like tilling of the land sowing of the seeds planting and similar work done on the land but also includes the subsequent operations set out above all of which operations basic as well as subsequent form one integrated activity of the agriculturist and the term agriculture has got to be understood as connoting this integrated activity of the agriculturist
One cannot dissociate the basic operations from the subsequent operations and say that the subsequent operations even though they are divorced from the basic operations can constitute agricultural operations by themselves
If this integrated activity which constitutes agriculture is undertaken and performed in regard to any land that land can be said to have been used for  agricultural purposes  and the income 156 derived therefrom can be said to be  agricultural income derived from the land by agriculture
In considering the connotation of the term  agriculture we have so far thought of cultivation of land in the wider sense as comprising within its scope the basic as well as the subsequent operations described above regardless of the nature of the products raised on the land
These products may be grain or vegetables or fruits which are necessary for the sustenance of human beings including plantations and groves or grass or pasture for consumption of beasts or articles of luxury such as betel coffee tea spices tobacco etc or commercial crops like cotton flax jute hemp indigo etc
All these are products raised from the land and the term agriculture cannot be confined merely to the production of grain and food products for human beings and beasts as was sought to be done by Bhashyam Ayyangar J in Murugesa Chetti vs Chinnathambi Goundun 1 or Sadashiva Ayyar J in Rajah of Venkatagiri vs Ayyappa Reddi 2 but must be understood as comprising all the products of the I and which have some utility either for consumption or for trade and commerce and would also include forest products such as timber sal and piyasal trees casuarina plantations tendu leaves horranuts etc
The question still remains whether there is any warrant for the further extension of the term  agriculture  to all activities in relation to the land or having connection with the land including breeding and rearing of livestock dairy farming butter and cheese making poultry farming etc
This extension is based on the dictionary meanings of the term and the definitions of agriculture  collated in Wharton s Law Lexicon as also the dicta of Lord Cullen and Lord Wright in Lean  Dickinson vs Ball 3 and Lord Glaneley vs Wightman 4 quoted above
Derbyshire CJ in Moolji Sicka  Co In re5 treated tendu plants growing on the soil as part of the soil and therefore considered the pruning of the shrub 1 Mad
421 423
2 Mad
3 4  638
5 157 as cultivation of the soil in a legal and technical sense and this extension of the term agriculture was also approved by Vishwanatha Sastri J in Commissioner of Income Tax vs K E Sundara Mudaliar 1
We are however of opinion that the mere fact that an activity has some connection with or is in some way dependent on land is not sufficient to bring it within the scope of the term and such extension of the term agriculture is unwarranted
The term agriculture cannot be dissociated from the primary significance thereof which is that of cultivation of the land and even though it can be extended in the manner we have stated before both in regard to the process of agriculture and the products which are raised upon the land there is no warrant at all for extending it to all activities which have relation to the land or are in any way connected with the land
The use of the word agriculture in regard to such activities would certainly be a distortion of the term
A critical examination of the definition of agricultural income as given in section 21 of the Indian Income tax Act and the relevant provisions of the several Agricultural Income tax Acts of the various States also lends support to this position
In the first instance it is defined as rent or revenue derived from land which is used for agricultural purposes and it is next defined as income derived from such land by agriculture or by the activities described in cls
2 and 3 of section 21b of the Act
These activities are postulated to be performed by the cultivator or receiver of rent in kind of such land in regard to the products raised or received by him which necessarily means the produce raised on the land either by himself or by the actual cultivator of the land who pays such rent in kind to him
If produce raised or received by the cultivator or receiver of rent in kind is thus made the subject matter of cls
ii and iii in section 2 1b of the Act the term agriculture used in cl
i of section 21b must also be similarly restricted to the performance of the basic operations on the land and there is no scope for reading the term agriculture  in the still wider sense indicated above
1  271 158 If the term  agriculture  is thus understood as comprising within its scope the basic as well as subsequent operations in the process of agriculture and the raising on the land of products which have some utility either for consumption or for trade and commerce it will be seen that the term  agriculture  receives a wider interpretation both in regard to its operations as well as the results of the same 
Nevertheless there is present all throughout the basic idea that there must be at the bottom of it cultivation of land in the sense of tilling of the land sowing of the seeds planting and similar work done on the land itself This basic conception is the essential sine qua non of any operation performed on the land constituting agricultural operation
If the basic operations are there the rest of the operations found themselves upon the same
But if these basic operations are wanting the subsequent operations do not acquire the characteristic of agricultural operations
All these operations no doubt require the expenditure of human labour and skill but the human labour and skill spent in the performance of the basic operations only can be said to have been spent upon the land
The human labour and skill spent in the performance of subsequent operations cannot be said to have been spent on the land itself though it may have the effect of preserving fostering and regenerating the products of the land
This distinction is not so important in cases where the agriculturist performs these operations as a part of his integrated activity in cultivation of the land
Where however the products of the land are of spontaneous growth unassisted by human skill and labour and human skill and labour are spent merely in fostering the growth preservation and regeneration of such products of land the question falls to be considered whether these subsequent operations performed by the agriculturist are agricultural operations and enjoy the characteristic of agricultural operations
It is agreed on all hands that products which grow wild on the land or are of spontaneous growth not involving any human labour or skill upon the land are 159 not products of agriculture and the income derived therefrom is not agricultural income
There is no process of agriculture involved in the raising of these products from the land
There are no agricultural operations performed by the assessee in respect of the same and the only work which the assessee performs here is that of collecting the produce and consuming and marketing the same
No agricultural operations have been performed and there is no question at all of the income derived therefrom being agricultural income within the definition given in section 21 of the Indian Income tax Act
Where however the assessee performs subsequent operations on these products of land which are of wild or spontaneous growth the nature of those operations would have to be determined in the light of the principles enunciated above
Applying these principles to the facts of the present case we no doubt start with the finding that the forest in question was of spontaneous growth
If there were no other facts found that would entail the conclusion that the income is not agricultural income
But then it has also been found by the Tribunal that the forest is more than 150 years old though portions of the forest have from time to time been denuded that is to say trees have completely fallen and the proprietors have planted fresh trees in those areas and they have performed operations for the purpose of nursing the trees planted by them
It cannot be denied that so far as those trees are concerned the income derived therefrom would be agricultural income
In view of the fact that the forest is more than 150 years old the areas which had thus become denuded and replanted cannot be considered to be negligible
The position therefore is that the whole of the income derived from the forest cannot be treated as non agricultural income
If the enquiry had been directed on proper lines it would have been possible for the Income tax authorities to ascertain how much of the income is attributable to forest of spontaneous growth and how much to trees planted by the proprietors
But no such enquiry had been directed and in view of the long lapse of time we do not consider it desirable to direct any such 160 enquiry now
The expenditure shown by the assessee for the maintenance of the forest is about Rs 17000 as against a total income of about Rs 51000
Having regard to the magnitude of this figure we think that a substantial portion of the income must have been derived from trees planted by the proprietors themselves
As no attempt has been made by the Department to establish which portion of the income is attributable to forest of spontaneous growth there are no materials on which we could say that the judgment of the court below is wrong
The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The question for decision in this appeal by the Commissioner of Income tax was whether a sum of Rs 51978 shown by the assessee in his return as income from his forest land was agricultural income within the meaning of section 21 Of the Indian Incometax Act and was as such exempt from taxation under section 43viii of the Act
The forest was of spontaneous growth 150 years old and consisted of sal and piyasal trees
It was in parts denuded of trees from time to time by destructive elements and the assessee had to plant fresh trees in those parts
Considerable amount of human labour and skill had to be applied year after year for maintaining the forest protecting the offshoots from the stumps of the trees that had been cut and sold and in reviving its denuded parts by fresh plantation
The staff employed by the assessee performed such operations as pruning weeding felling clearing cutting of channels guarding the trees and sowing seeds by digging the soil in the denuded areas
The Income tax Officer rejected the assessee s claim of exemption and added a sum of Rs 34430 to the assessable income allowing a sum of Rs 17548 as expenditure
The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax confirmed the assessment
The Appellate Tribunal held that the sowing of seeds were few and far between and the income derived as it was from jungle products was not agricultural income within the meaning of the Act
The High Court took a contrary view held that tillage of the soil was not essential and the income was agricultural income as human labour and skill had been expended on the land itself and answered the question in favour of the assessee
No attempt was however made by the Income tax Authorities to ascertain the income actually derived from the trees planted by the assessee nor were any materials placed on the record from which its exact amount could be ascertained but having regard to the magnitude of the expenditure shown by the assessee as against the total income this Court held that a substantial portion of it must have been derived from the trees planted by the assessee
Held that the income actually derived from the trees planted by the assessee was agricultural income within the meaning of 21 of the Indian Income tax Act and no attempt having been 102 made to ascertain its exact amount and a fresh enquiry being undesirable after such a long lapse of time the appeal must be dismissed
The term agriculture in section 21bi of the Indian Income tax Act connotes the entire and integrated activity of an agriculturist performed on the land in order to raise its produce and consists of such basic and essential operations requiring human skill and labour on the land itself as the tilling of the soil sowing of the seeds planting and similar operations on the land and such other subsequent operations performed after the produce sprouts from the land as weeding digging of the soil around the growth removal of undesirable under growths tending pruning cutting harvesting and marketing
But these subsequent operations if unconnected with the basic operations cannot by themselves constitute agriculture
It is only when the land is subjected to such integrated activity that It can be said to be used for agricultural purpose  and its income called agricultural income within the meaning of the Act
Case law discussed
Whatever is produced by such agriculture must be an agricul tural product and the ambit of the term agriculture  cannot be confined merely to the production of grain and food for men and cattle but must extend to all products of the land that have some utility either for consumption or trade and commerce
Fruit and vegetable plantations groves pastures articles of luxury such as betel coffee tea spices tobacco etc
or commercial crops like cotton flax jute hemp indigo etc
as also forest products such as timber sal and Piyasal trees Casuarina plantations tendu leaves horranuts etc can come within its ambit
Murugesa Chetti vs Chinnathambi Goundan Mad 421 and Raja of Venkatagiri vs Ayyappa Reddy Mad 738 disapproved
Such an extended meaning of the term agriculture  and its processes and products can be tenable only where there is cultivation which means the basic operations and can never be dissociated from them
There is therefore no warrant for its further extension so as to include activities which are in some way connected with or dependent on land such as breeding and rearing of livestock dairy farming butter and cheese making and poultry farming
Moolji Sicka  Co In re1925 10 TC341 and Commissioner of Income Tax vs K E Sundara Mudaliar 1950 18 ITR 259 disapproved
Although human labour and skill are required both in the performance of the basic as well as the subseqent operations it is only in the case of the basic operations alone that such skill and labour can be said to have been spent on the land itself and this distinction becomes important where they are disjointed and do 103 not form an integrated activity as in the case of products of land that are of spontaneous growth where human skill and labour are spent merely in fostering the growth preservation and regeneration of such products
Judicial opinion is unanimous that products which grow wild on the land or are of spontaneous growth and do not involve any human skill or labour on the land and all that the assessee has to perform in respect of them is only to collect them for consumption and marketing are not products of agriculture and the income derived from them is not agricultural income within the meaning Of section 21 Of the Act
When however the assessee performs subsequent operations on these products of land the nature of those operations will have to be determined in the light of the principles enunciated above
Held further that there is no basis for the argument that the demarcation of agriculture and forestry as separate heads of legislation in Entries 14 and 19 of List 11 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution has the effect of making them mutually exclusive
Income from forestry coming within the definition of agricultural income  contained in section 21 of the Indian Income tax Act will be agricultural income under Entry 46 and thus fall within the purview of that Act