PROBHAT CHANDRA BARUA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Reference made by the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Assam, under Section 66, Sub-section (2) of the Indian Income-Tax Act (XI of 1922) for the opinion of the Court. The question for determination is stated thus: Whether the following classes of income derived from permanently settled estates are liable to income-tax: (1) Income from fisheries. (2) Income from land used for stacking: timber. (3) Income from pasturage.

(2.) The question as regards income from pasturage is not now in dispute, and I agree with the Commissioner and the learned Vakil who appears for the Crown in thinking it to be reasonably plain that income from pasturage is derived from land which is used for "agricultural purposes," and is, therefore, in the case of a permanently settled estate, within the exemption given by Section 4, Sub-section (3), Clause (viii) of the Act to "agricultural income" as defined by Section 2, Sub-section (1), Clause (a). In the circumstance that such income is derived from fees realised from graziers who graze their cattle in the forest areas and waste lands, there is nothing to render inapplicable the definition of "agricultural income" contained in Clause (a).

(3.) As regards both of the other classes of income abovementioned, learned Counsel for the Assessee has contended that independently of any exemption given by the Indian Income-Tax Act, and notwithstanding the wide language of Secs.4 and 6 which are the charging sections and of Section 12, the Assassee as the holder of a permanently settled estate is entitled to be considered as outside the scope of the Act as regards all forms of income derived from his estate. This contention is grounded upon the language of solemn promise employed in, more than one of the Articles of Regulation I of 1793. It is not suggested that an Act of the Indian Legislature can be regarded as invalid in so far as it is shown to revoke or curtail, the declarations contained in the Regulation. But it is contended that in the circumstances the Indian Income-Tax Act must be approached with strong presumption against double taxation, and against any intention on the part of the Legislature to revoke by implication historic and explicit promises. Accordingly, it is said, mere wide and general language in the charging section- All income, profits or gains as described or comprised in Section 6 from whatever source derived accruing or arising or received in British India.- is not enough, particularly, if it is found that in practice revenue derived from permanently settled estates has not boon assessed to income-tax.