THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL, CALCUTTA versus RAJA BENOY KUMAR SARAS ROY

Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 101 · Decided: 23-05-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

., 
S.C.R. SUPREME 
COURT 
REPORTS 
101 
THE COMMISSIONER 
WEST BENGAL, 
v. 
OF INCOME-TAX, 
CALCUTTA 
RAJA BENOY KUMAR SARAS ROY 
(BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR and 
J.L. 
KAPUR JJ.) 
Income-tax-Exemption-Income from sale of forest trees, if 
.and when agricultural income-"Agriculture", Meaning of-Indian 
Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), ss. 2(1), 4(3) (viii). 
The question for decision in this appeal by the Commissioner 
·of Income-tax was whether a sum of Rs. 51,978 shown by the 
assessee in his return as income from his forest land was agricul-
tural income within the meaning of s. 2(1) of the Indian Income-
tax Act and was as such exempt from taxation under s. 4(3)(viii) 
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 lmd 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 dig-
ging the soil in the denuded areas. The Income-tax Officer rejected 
the assessee's claim of exemption an added a sum of Rs. 34,430 
to the assessable income, allowing a sum of Rs. 17,548 as expend-
iture. 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 agricul-
tural 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 
s. 2(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act and no attempt having been 
1957 
May, 23 
102 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1958J 
19S1 
made to ascertain its exact amount and a fresh enquiry being 
The Commissioner u!'de~irable after such a long lapse of time, the appeal must be 
of Income-tax, 
d1sm1ssed. 
Wc!rc!::fal 
The term 'agriculture' in s. 2(l)(b)(i) of the Indian Income-tax 
•· 
Act connotes the entire and integrated activity of an agriculturist 
Raja Benoy Kumar performed on the land in order to raise its produce and consists of 
Sahas Roy 
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, sol an

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.