1977 (3) TMI 27

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Income-tax Act, one of the contentions put forward by the first respondent was that even though he owned 38.33 acres of land, he cultivated an extent of less than 12.50 standard acres and, therefore, the Act itself did not apply to him. Though the Agricultural Income-tax Officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not accept this contention of the first respondent, the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal accepted this contention and held that the Act has no application to the first respondent. It also alternatively held that even on the basis that the Act applied, the income derived by the first respondent was below the taxable limit and, therefore, no tax was payable by him. It is the correctness of these conclusion....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the Act a person must not only possess and own the land but should also actually cultivate the land. It may happen that in one year for seasonal conditions or for want of water a person may cultivate a lesser extent and in another year he may cultivate more extent, in the first year the extent cultivated being less than 12.50 standard acres and in the second year, it being more than 12.50 standard acres. In such a case it cannot be contended that by virtue of section 10(1) the person is exempt from the Act for the first year, but comes within the scope of the Act for the second year. It is one thing to say that a person is exempt from the Act under section 10(1) of the Act, but it is entirely another thing to say that a person is not lia....