EMPEROR Vs. PROBHAT CHANDRA BARUA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present reference, the learned vakil who appears for the assessee confines himself to three items included in the first question, namely : item (v), item (vii) and item (viii).

(2.) With reference to item (v), namely, fees received from land used for storing purchases of crops (paiati); what is actually meant by this is given in the petition of the assessee which he presented to the assistant commissioner of income-tax at Goalpara, He means the income which is derived for the use of land for storing purchases of food-crops, etc., by merchants, Evidently this does not come within the definition of "agricultural income" as given in Section 2, Indian Income-tax Act. The income, as derived, is not derived from land used for agricultural purposes and, as such, such income cannot be claimed to be exempt from assessment.

(3.) With reference to item (vii), i.e., punyaha nazar or nazar paid by tenants of agricultural holdings at-the beginning of the zamindari year, I am of opinion that this also does not come within the definition of "agricultural income" as given in the Act. This nazar is generally paid by tenants who are actually present on the occasion of the punyaha to the landlord. There is no uniformity in the payment of such nazar, nor is there any compulsory method for realizing such nazar. The tenants, if they choose, might not pay any nazar whatsoever on that occasion and the landlord cannot under any law at present in force enforce his supposed right, nor can the landlord demand nazar at a certain uniform rate. It is purely a voluntary payment by tenants, who take part in the ceremony and who usually are present on the occasion. It is not, therefore, an income which is derived from land used for agricultural purposes.