Forest produce of spontaneous growth is not agricultural income unless basic cultivation of the soil is shown.

Receipts from forest leases and forest produce of spontaneous growth are not agricultural income where the assessee does not carry out basic agricultural operations on the soil itself. Income from the Bankura forest lease, taken on short terms for lump sums with rights to cut trees and jungle growth, was held not to be agricultural income and was not shown to be capital receipts displacing taxability. Income from the Kharagpur forest, derived from wild bamboo, sabai grass and timber, also failed to qualify as agricultural income because rotational felling, conservation and clearing around trees were only subsequent forestry operations. The governing principle is that forest growth of spontaneous origin does not become agricultural income merely because of conservation measures.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the receipts from the Bankura forest lease were capital receipts or agricultural income; (ii) Whether the receipts from the Kharagpur forest were agricultural income.

Issue (i): Whether the receipts from the Bankura forest lease were capital receipts or agricultural income.

Analysis: The receipts arose from leasing out forest land on short terms for lump sums, with the lessee entitled to cut specified trees and jungle growth. The decisive question was whether the income was derived from cultivation of the soil or from forestry operations over spontaneous growth. The operations described were directed to conservation, cutting and removal of forest growth, and preservation of new shoots, but not to basic agricultural operations on the land itself.

Conclusion: The receipts from the Bankura forest lease were not agricultural income and were not shown to be capital receipts in a manner that displaced taxability; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the receipts from the Kharagpur forest were agricultural income.

Analysis: The income from the Kharagpur forest came from bamboos, sabai grass and timber, which were found to be grown wild and spontaneously. Although there were measures such as rotational felling, conservation of trees, and clearing around selected trees, these were subsequent forestry operations. They did not amount to basic operations of agriculture or cultivation of the soil, nor did they convert naturally grown forest produce into produce raised by agriculture.

Conclusion: The receipts from the Kharagpur forest were not agricultural income and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Forest produce of spontaneous growth does not become agricultural income merely because the owner undertakes conservation or forestry measures that do not amount to cultivation of the soil.

Ratio Decidendi: Income from forest growth of spontaneous origin is not agricultural income unless the assessee performs basic agricultural operations on the soil itself; subsequent conservation or forestry operations are insufficient.

---