COMMR OF WEALTH TAX Vs. MARY ROCKIE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following questions have been at the instance of the revenue, referred to us by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench:

(2.) The assessment year is 1969-70. During the relevant accounting year the assessee owned 62 cents of land in Survey No. 977/5 on the eastern side of the M.G. Road, Ernakulam. Out of this area, 9 cents had been set apart for three kudikidappukars. The assessee claimed that the balance area of 53 cents in her possession was exempt from the levy under the Wealth Tax Act. 1957 (the "Act") as it then stood, by reason of its being an agricultural property. The assessee's claim was disallowed by the Wealth Tax Officer on the ground that there was no evidence of any agricultural activity in the property during the relevant period. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the finding of the Wealth Tax Officer as regards its ineligibility to exemption under the Act, but he reduced the value of the land to some extent. On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal noticed that there was a tank in the property extending to about 10 cents. The rest of the property, being 43 cents in extent, had 16 trees standing on it. The Tribunal stated that there was no evidence to show that the land in question had been put to any non agricultural activity. On the basis of that finding, the land was treated as an agricultural property exempt from the levy of wealth tax.

(3.) The Tribunal applied the wrong test. The question was not whether the land had been put to any non agricultural activity. The question which the Tribunal ought to have asked itself was whether the land was used for agricultural purposes in the relevant accounting year. Was there any evidence of agricultural activity during that year That was the right question which the Tribunal ought to have asked itself. If it had done so, it would have come to the opposite conclusion.