COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. KATRAGADDA MADHUSUDHANA ROW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE disagree with the opinion of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that a question of law arises in this case. The question is one of fact.

(2.) SECTION 2(1) (b) (ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act defines agricultural income as income derived from land by the performance by a cultivator of any process ordinarily employed by a cultivator to render the produce raised or received by him fit to be taken to market. The assessee are growers of tobacco in the Kistna District. The leaf which they produce is used for the making of Virginia cigarettes. They have been in the habit of selling most of their produce to the Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Company which has an office at Guntur. In order to make the leaf suitable for the market, the assessees dry it by a process known as flue-curing. There are four methods of curing tobacco :- (1) Flue curing, (2) raw curing, (3) ground or sun-curing and (4) pit curing. Mr. Rama Rao Sahib who appears for the Commissioner of Income-tax admits that if the assessees leaf were cured by any of these methods other than flue curing, the case would fall under SECTION (2) (1) (b) (ii) : but he maintains that flue curing is not a method ordinarily employed by a tobacco cultivator to fit his produce for the market.