VENKATARAMAN ANNAYYA HEGDE Vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a resident of the village of Manjaavalli in the District of North Kanara, in which he owns 8 acres and 21 guntas of agricultural land. On 26th May, 1964, he made an application under S. 67 of the Mysore Agrl. IT Act, 1957, for composition of the agricultural income-tax payable by him. By an order made on 20th July, 1964, the Agrl. ITO refused composition on the ground that he had "learnt" that the assessee had reaped and derived an income from pepper and cardamom which are plantation crops as defined by S. 2(1)(q) of the Act.

(2.) THE view taken by the ITO was that, since the assessee not only grew on his land areca which is a commercial crop as defined by S. 2(1)(e), but also derived income from pepper and cardamom which are plantation crops as defined by S. 2(1)(q), no classification of land for composition was possible under S. 66, and so no composition could be sought under S. 67.

(3.) IT is asserted on behalf of the petitioner by his learned advocate, Mr. Krishnaswamy Rao, that, since the petitioner grew on his land areca, he was clearly entitled to seek composition, since areca is a commercial crop, notwithstanding the fact that some subsidiary income was derived by the petitioner in the form of income from plantation crops such as pepper and cardamom. It is admitted before us by Mr. Krishnaswamy Rao that the petitioner does grow pepper and cardamom on the land with which we are concerned. But his submission was that the main crop which he was growing on the land was the areca crop.