AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (6) TMI 83
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The deceased received a sum of Rs. 27,500 at the time of the above sale. The other half of the sale proceeds was left with the vendor with a stipulation mentioned in the deed of sale itself that the amount would be handed over to the minor son of the deceased, who is the accountable person before us. This amount has been paid in instalments from 1955 to June, 1970 with the interest of Rs.12,441 from the purchaser. Out of the above sums received, the accountable person had advanced a sum of Rs. 15,000 to his mother Smt. Alagamai Achi. It appears that this lady had invested this amount in the extension of some mortgage facilities to a third party and was assessed on the interest income yielded by the above investment. A sum of Rs. 15,000 was stated to have been lent by the accountable person to the joint family and the amount was invested in the joint family business. The Asstt. Controller of Estate Duty took the view that a sum of Rs. 30,000 could be estimated as part of the joint family property (out of the sale proceeds of Rs. 55,000 plus Rs.12,441 amounting to Rs. 67,441). He added the above sum of Rs. 30,000 to the principal value of the estate. The Appellate Controller consid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pump-sets from out of two bit wells in the land. The Asstt. Controller however, did not agree with the claim of the accountable person that the above land was agricultural for the reason that no land revenue but urban land tax was levied on this property. The Appellate Controller observed that though the lands were situate at Edward Elliots Road, which is very near to the office of the Inspector General of Police on the Marina, yet it cannot be classified as anything other than agricultural land. He found that the Asstt. Controller himself was convinced that the land was put to agricultural use. He, therefore, held that the above land was agricultural. Aggrieved by this finding of the Appellate Controller the Revenue has come on appeal before us. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently contended that the above land was non-agricultural more especially when urban land tax has been levied in respect of the said property. The learned counsel for the accountable person on the other hand pointed out hat the land has been put to agricultural use for a very long time both by the deceased and his successors and even now. He further pointed out that in the wealth-tax assessments....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....water supply, run through small channels to various gardens. Inspite of these lands being put to the use of raising vegetables etc. there is no warrant for accepting the accountable person's claim that these are agricultural lands, as the entire lands including these and those on which buildings are constructed are subjected to the urban land tax payments seen from the urban land tax orders produced." In addition the learned counsel for the accountable person has pointed out that in the Wealth-tax assessments made for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1973-74 the land in question was treated as agricultural land and exemption was granted. From the above it is very clear that the land was actually put to use for agricultural purposes. The only point urged by the Revenue in support of its contention that the land cannot be treated as agricultural is that the land was assessed to urban land tax and not to land revenue. Under the Urban land Tax Act tax is levied on each urban land at a particular rate or percentage of the market value. Urban land is defined under the said Act as land which is used or is capable of being used as a building site, but does not include any land which is regist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r to the date of coming into force of the Urban Land Tax Act in the city of Madras and which continued to be under cultivation as per Revenue accounts were exempt from levy of urban land tax w.e.f. 1st July 1975. In these circumstances the levy of urban land tax for the period relevant to the date of death of the deceased therefore does not conclusively establish that the land for which urban land tax is levied is not agricultural land. We are not persuaded to hold that the clear finding recorded by the Appellate Controller to the effect that there was a systematic and regular human endeavour put into lands for the raising of vegetables etc. both by the deceased and his successors is incorrect or unsustainable. As already stated even the Asstt. Controller of Estate Duty has found that the impugned lands, namely 47 grounds and 600 sq. ft. were actually used by the deceased and his successors for the purpose of raising vegetables like brinjals, greens, tomatoes, snake-gourd, pumpkin and flowers like dhavanams, roses, etc. that ground was laid out with separate embankments for different kinds of vegetables and that water for the plants were taken through channels by installing pump se....