The Member for The Board of
Agricultural Income Tax, Assam Vs. Smt. Sindhurani Chaudhurani  INSC 38
(24 April 1957)
BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.
AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA
CITATION: 1957 AIR 729 1957 SCR 1019
Salami--Indicia-If capital receipt-Liability
to agricultural income-tax-Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act (Assam IX of
1939), s. 2(a) (1).
The true indicia of salami are (1) its single
non-recurring character and (2) payment prior to the creation of the tenancy.
It is the consideration paid by the tenant for being let into possession and
can be neither rent nor revenue but is a capital receipt in the hands of the
Kamakshya Narain Singh v. The Commissioner of
Income Tax (1943) L.R. 70 I.A. 180, relied on.
Birendra Kishore Manikya v. Secretary of
State for India, (1920) I.L.R. 48 Cal. 766, Meher Bano Khanum v. Secretary of
State for India, (1925) I.L.R. 53 Cal. 34, Raja Rajendra Narayan Bhanja Deo v.
Commissioner of Income Tax, (1929) I.L.R. 9 Pat. 1 and Commissioner of Income
Tax v. K. C. Manavikramato Rajah, I.L.R. 1945 Mad. 837, distinguished.
Consequently, where payments described as
salamis and received by certain zamindar assessees as consideration for
granting agricultural leases, by no means of a precarious nature, were (1)
 1 All E.R. 546. (2)  1 All E.R. 608.
1020 all made prior to such grants and were
of a non-recurring character, but calculated at rates varying with the nature
of the lands and chargeable on every subsequent eviction and re-letting, they
were properly so described and were neither rent nor revenue within the
definition of 'agricultural income' contained in s. 2(a) (1) of the Assam
Agricultural Income-Tax Act and could not be assessed to tax under the Act.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals
Nos. 162 of 1955, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of 1956.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated
January 5, 1953, of the Calcutta High Court (Original Side) in Income Tax
Reference Appeal No. 12 of 1942 and appeals from the judgment and order dated
July 2, 1952, of the Assam High Court at Gauhati in Agricultural Income Tax
References Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 6 and 8 of 1949 respectively.
Veda Vyasa and Naunit Lal, for the appellants
in C.A. No. 162 of 1955 and respondents in C. As. Nos. 38 to 44 of 1956.
B. Baksi, S. N. Mukerjea and R. B. Biswas,
for the respondents in C. A. No. 162 of 1955 and appellants in C. As. Nos. 38
to 41, 43 and 44 of 1956.
Appellant in C. A. No. 42 of 1956 not
1957 April 24. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by KAPUR J.-In all these appeals the question for decision is the
character and purport of the payment termed 'Salami' and whether it falls
within the meaning of " agricultural income " as defined in the Assam
Agricultural Income Tax Act (Ass.
IX of 1939) hereinafter called the " Act
C. A. No. 162 of 1955 is directed against the
judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated January 15, 1953. C. A. Nos.
38 to 44 of 1956 have been brought against
the judgment of Assam High. Court dated April 2, 1952. These matters were all
heard together in the Assam High Court and were disposed of by one judgment C.
A. No. 162 of 1955 relates to the assessment year 1941-
42. The assessee in that case was a -/8/9
annas 1021 co-sharer in a zamindari estate known as " Parbatjoar estate
" in Assam. The original assessee was Jyotindra Narayan Chowdhury who died
on January 25, 1953, and on his death his widow, Shrimati Sindhurani
Chowdhurani and others were substituted. The gross in, agricultural income of
the assessee was Rs. 89,633 and income from salami was Rs. 9,331-9-4 which was
received from settlement of 414 different holdings out of which 278 were
holdings of virgin lands and 136 were those of what are described as auction-
purchase lands. Out of the gross income from salami 15 per cent. has been
allowed as collection charges and the amount in dispute in this appeal
therefore is Rs. 7,934. The Agricultural Income Tax Officer held this sum to be
"agricultural income " by his order dated November 10, 1941, which
was affirmed on appeal to the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income
Tax. The revision taken to the Commissioner under s. 27 of the Act was
dismissed but at the instance of the assessee the following two questions were
referred for the opinion of the High Court.
(1)Whether the single non-recurring premia or
salamis paid to the landlord assessee once only as consideration for the
settlement of agricultural land at the time of granting a lease can be held to
be income within the meaning of the Act ? (2)Whether single non-recurring
premia or salamis paid to the landlord assessee as consideration for the
settlement of agricultural land once only at the time of granting lease when
such premia or salamis are not dependent on the rate of rent charged, can be
held to be income within the meaning of the Act ? The Calcutta High Court by
its judgment dated April 12, 1945, held these receipts to be "
agricultural income." Against this judgment an appeal was taken to the
Privy Council but on the abolition of the jurisdiction of the Privy Council the
appeal was transferred to the Federal Court and was heard by that court as C.
A. No. 30 of 1949.
That court set aside the judgment of the High
Court and remitted the case to the High Court " to be dealt with again
after ascertaining and considering the following additional factors likely 1022
to show the true nature of the receipts described as It salami in the present
" 1. The number of settlement of waste
lands and abandoned holdings during the accounting year and, the maximum and
the minimum extents settled and salami received.
2. Does the salami vary with the quality of
the land, the facilities for irrigation and such other favourable factors ?
3. How many tenants ejected under section 69
during the accounting year and how long they had been in occupation before such
4. Is salami received when lands are relet
5. Is salami that is paid in the zamindary of
the assessee in the nature of a I present' given by the tenant to the landlord
for the permission to occupy the land or whether it is in substance a premium
payable by lessee at the inception of the tenancy? After the remand the case
was again stated by the Member of Assam Board of Agricultural Income Tax, Dr.
Goswami, and answers to these questions were :
1. Total number of settlements were 414,
maximum extent being 59 bighas 2 Cottahs and 10 Dhurs, and salami Rs.
161-8-61 and minimum extent was 15 Cottahs
and salami received therefrom Rs. 2-11-9.
2. Rate of salami varies with the quality of
the lands, two fixed rates being Rs. 7 per bigha for jungle lands and Rs. 10
per bigha for non-jungle lands.
3. There was no eviction of tenants under
section 69 of the Goalpara Tenancy Act, but action was taken in a large number
of cases under section 68 of that Act.
4. Salami is realized when lands are relet
5. Salami is not in the nature of a present.
It is a compulsory payment by the tenant to the landlord at the inception of
In the Statement of the Case the Board said
that the zamindar's business or vocation was letting out holdings 1023 against
payment. The area of land held by him was a large one "which he lets out
piecemeal to various tenants on conditions among others that the would be
tenant will first pay a fee which he prefers to call salami' and that he will
pay an annual rent. " It held that this payment was not "a
windfall", that the " isalami' arose from the landlord's business of
letting out his lands, and............ is an income", that because of the
" regularity or periodicity " attached to the receipt of salami,
" it satisfies the test of I income ' " and therefore the amounts
received as salami were agricultural income " within s. 2(a)(1) of the
On a consideration of the facts found by the
Board in this case and after reference to the reported judgments of the various
courts, the Calcutta High Court held that the amounts received by the assessee
as salami were not " agricultural income " and the Board has brought
this appeal (C.A. No. 162 of 1955) against that judgment.
In the Assam Appeals also the areas of land
held by the assessees were large and total income in the case of "
Parbatjoar estate " was Rs. 1,15,510 and in the case of Mechpara estate it
was Rs. 2,82,106 which was divisible amongst the various co-sharers. Salami
rates in Parbatjoar estate varied from Rs. 7 per.bigha for forest land to Rs.
10 per bigha for other lands depending upon the quality of the land. In Mechpara
estate the rates in hilly tracts were Re. 1 to Rs. 2 for good sail land and Re.
1 to Rs. 6 for other class of land and in the plains they varied from Rs. 2 to
Rs. 3 for good sail land, and Re. 1 to Rs. 6 for other lands and As. 8 to Re. 1
for newly formed Char lands. In Bijni Raj estate the minimum salami was Re. 1
per bigha irrespective of the area of the land. In Gauripur estate the holdings
were settled by auction and the amount of salami was determined by the demand,
depending upon the quality of land and facilities for irrigation. Similarly ;in
the Chapter Trust estate holdings were settled by auction. The finding of the
High Court was:
" It is abundantly clear from the above
statement of facts that the rates of salami vary with the quality 1024 land in
each estate. They have no relation to rent which is admittedly fixed and
Lands are settled generally in small plots.
The highest figure received as salami in a single transaction in the years with
which we are concerned was in Parbatjoar. A sum of Rs. 621 was received on a
settlement of an area measuring 88 B., 14 K., 15 D. In Mechpara an area
measuring 165 B., 16 K., 12 D., was settled for Rs. 318. The minimum extent of
area settled in one transaction was also in Mechpara. Lands measuring only 2 K.
was settled. Salami received was Rs. 3- 5-0. Between these two extremes the
extent of areas settled varies. " There were no evictions under s. 69 of
the Assam Tenancy Act of non-occupancy tenants but ejectments did take place
and action was taken under s. 68 of the Act. After the re- statement of the
case on the lines suggested by the Federal Court, the Assam High Court held
that " salami " is not rent but revenue derived from land and is
The question for decision is whether the
amounts received as salami are rent or revenue within the definition of "
agricultural income " and therefore liable to agricultural income tax.
The basis of the first Calcutta judgment
dated May 12, 1945, in C.A. No. 162 of 1955 was that salamis were a normal and
regular feature of these estates and there was periodicity.
When the matter came up in appeal to the
Federal Court the learned Chief Justice was of the opinion that the receipt
termed salami if nothing more is stated in respect of it cannot be treated as a
capital receipt and therefore exempt from taxation nor could it merely as such
be treated as income and therefore assessable to income-tax. Mahajan J.
(as he then was) said: " It may be a
recurring or a periodical payment if it is a fee or a fine levied annually on
the holder of rent-free tenures as a quit rent; on the other hand, it may not
be a periodical payment or a recurring payment if it is in the form of gratuity
or offering on receiving a lease or settling for the revenue or on receiving
any favour real or implied." He was of the opinion that in the former case
it would be agricultural 102 income but in the latter case it would be a capita
receipt being the price for that small " modicum of ownership which the
landlord transfers to the tenant.' In the Assam cases Ram Labhaya J. said that
by settling the lands and accepting salami the landlord parts with the right of
The characteristics and incidence of salami
disclosed from the " statements of the cases " are that it is a lump
sum non-recurring receipt of money by a landlord from a tenant before making a
settlement of the holding which in C.A. No. 162 of 1955 varied from Rs. 7 to
Rs. 10 per bigha and was less in other cases. He is also entitled to charge a
fixed periodical amount of 11 annas per bigha per annum. Salami is charged
when. ever a fresh settlement is made whether it is of a piece of virgin land
or of an auction-purchase holding. Thus salami is a payment by a tenant to the
landlord antecedent to the constitution of the relationship of landlord and
tenant. It is really a payment by the tenant to the landlord for being allowed
to take possession of the land for cultivation under the lease. In all those
cases under appeal the leases were oral and the duration and conditions thereof
were regulated by Statute The Assam Tenancy Act. Salami is not a recurring or
periodical payment or a fee or fine levied at fixed intervals from the tenant
for the same holding. In these cases it has not been contended or even
suggested nor was it contended before the Federal Court that salami is
capitalised rent. As a matter of fact the Federal Court found that it was not
rent. In' consideration of the payment of salami an estate in land is
transferred by the landlord to the tenant although the estate taken by the
tenant in the first instance is a non- occupancy tenancy which grows into an
occupancy tenancy by the efflux of time. But in no case in any of the appeals
was action taken under s. 69 of the Assam Tenancy Act which regulates the
rights and liabilities of non-occupancy tenants and no tenant was ejected from
his non-occupancy tenancy. On the other hand whenever action had to be taken
for non-payment of rent and ejectment it was taken 132 1026 under s. 68 of the
Goalpara Tenancy Act. This section s as follows:
A permanent tenure-holder, a raiyat at fixed
rates, or an occupancy tenant, shall not be liable to ejectment for arrears of
rent, but his tenure or holding shall be liable to sale in execution of a decree
for the rent thereof, and the rent shall be a first charge thereon. In
execution of decrees for arrears of rent the estates of the occupancy tenants
were sold, the purchaser in all cases being the landlord himself and thus for
recovering the arrears of rent the landlord had to bring to sale the right,
title and interest of his tenant and after purchase of this right he relet the
land, on receiving the salami from the new tenant.
This process again shows that the landlord
did part with some interest in land, which cannot be said to be precarious,
when he made the settlement of land on receipt of salami, which was a single
nonrecurring payment by the lessee for the acquisition of his rights under the
lease. " Agricultural income" which, it is claimed by the Board
comprises salami, has been defined in s. 2(a)(i) of the Act.
The relevant portion of this section is:
S.2(a)(i). Any rent or revenue derived from
land which is used for agricultural purposes, and is either assessed to land
revenue in Assam or subject to a local rate assessed and collected by officers
of the Government as such.
Salami is not rent and, therefore, unless it
is revenue it will not fall within this definition.
" Income" was described by Sir
George Lowndes in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shaw Wallace & Co. (1) as
"a periodical monetary return coming in with some sort of regularity, or
expected regularity, from definite sources." In Captain Maharaj Kumar
Gopal Saran Narain Singh v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar & Orissa
(2), Lord Russell of Killowen after referring to the definition given by Sir
George Lowndes held that life annuity paid out of an estate is income.
(1) (1932) L.R. 59 I.A. 2o6, 212.
(2) (1935) L.R. 62 I.A. 207.
1027 Salami was described by Lord Wright in
Kamakshya Narain Singh v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (1), a case of a grant
of a mining lease for a period of 999 years, in the following words:
" The salami has been, rightly, in their
Lordships' opinion, treated as a capital receipt. It is a single payment made
for the acquisition of the right of lessees to enjoy the benefits granted to
them by the lease. That general right may properly be regarded as a capital
asset, and the money paid to purchase it may properly be held to be a payment
on capital account." The importance lies in the use of the words "the
money paid to purchase it ", i.e., the right of the lessee to enjoy the
benefits granted under the lease.
In Raja Shiv Prasad Singh v. The Crown(2)
where also the lease was a mining lease for a period of 999 years, salami was
described as a sum which is payable at the inception of the lease and as a
nonrecurring payment in the nature of a premium for granting a lease.
In Commissioner of Income Tax v.
Maharajadhiraj Kumar Visheshwar Singh (3) an area measuring 41 bighas of land
was settled for an indefinite (bemead) period on a yearly rent and in the event
of default of two consecutive instalments the lessee could be dispossessed and
was also liable to other penalties. This land was settled with the lessee to
enable him to build a " gola house" and a platform for the rice mill.
The lease was taken to be in the nature of a permanent lease and it was held
that salami represented the price for parting with the land and was not merely
an advance rent and as it was not a recurring payment, it did not fall within
the definition of the word 'income' as given in Commissioner of Income Tax v.
Shaw Wallace & Co. (4).
Manoharlal J. who gave a concurrent judgment,
at page 824 described salami as the amount of money which a landlord
"insists on receiving as a condition precedent for parting with the land
in favour of the lessee." lie also held that salami (1) (1943) L.R. 70
I.A. 180, 190.
(2) (1924) I.L.R. 4 Patna 73.
(3) (1939) I.L.R. 18 Patna 805.
(4) (1932) L.R. 59 I.A. 206, 212.
1028 could not be treated as a revenue
receipt and that it was received by the landlord "not because of the use
of the land but before the land was put into use by the assessee." The
same court in Province of Bihar v. Maharaja Protap Udai Nath Sahi Deo (1)
followed the definition of the word 'salami' as given in Kumar Visheshwar
Singh's case. Harries C.J. there held that where salami cannot be regarded as
payment of rent in advance, it will not be income and would, therefore, not be
taxable. He said "prima facie, salami is not income, and it is impossible
upon the facts as stated to say that salamis received............... constitute
part of his income." Rankin C.J. in Re Gooptu Estate Limited (2) held
payment of one lakh of rupees as salami not to be income. In that case it was
demanded and paid in respect of resettlement of a lease which had still to run
for 48 years but had been forfeited for the non-payment of rent.
In certain cases, however, payment by way of
salami has been held to be 'agricultural income'. In Birendra Kishore Manikya
v. Secretary of State for India (3) it was held that the consideration for the
grant of a lease is the capitalised value of the sum periodically payable along
with the premium so that "the larger the one element the smaller the
other." On this basis the premium paid for the settlement of waste lands
or abandoned holdings was regarded as rent or revenue' derived from land and
therefore within the definition of agricultural income in section 2(1)(a) of
the Indian Income Tax Act. This was a case which was decided under the Indian
Income Tax Act and the question whether it was a capital receipt or revenue
receipt and therefore exempt or not from taxation did not arise because the
Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act was passed in 1944 and the Assam Act in
1939. It was not necessary for the purpose of that case to decide whether it
was a capital receipt or revenue because what was to be decided was whether
salami was (1) (1947) I.L.R. 20 Patna 699, 722.
(2) (1929) 50 C.L.J. 375.
(3) (1920) I.L.R. 48 Cal, 766.
1029 exempt from income-tax under s. 2(a)(i)
of the Indian Income Tax Act. As a matter of fact the assessee argued in that
case that these sums constituted " agricultural income".
Moreover the dictum the smaller the salami
the higher the rent and vice-versa did not receive acceptance by the Federal
Court when the present matter was heard in that court before remand (C.A. No.
30 of 1949).
In Meher Bano Khanum v. Secretary of State
for India(1) 'salami' was defined to be an amount received by the landlord for
the recognition of the transfer of a non- transferable holding which was paid
to the landlord because of his ownership of the land. It was held to be
"agricultural income" as it was "rent or revenue" within
the meaning of that expression. The Standing Counsel who appeared for the
Secretary of State in that case conceded that it was not revenue but his
argument was that it was not revenue derived from land but that it was an
incident of the transfer and not of tenancy and therefore did not flow from the
land. In neither of these cases was it argued whether salami was a revenue
receipt or capital receipt.
In a Full Bench of the Patna High Court in
Raja Rajendra Narayan Bhanja Deo v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2 ) mutation
fees were held to be agricultural income but that was a case of payment after
the relationship of landlord and tenant had come into existence. Similarly in
the Commissioner of Income Tax v. K. C. Manavikraman Rajah (3) monies paid for
the renewal of leases were held to be agricultural income within the meaning of
s. 2(1)(a) of the Indian Income Tax Act. Here again the monies were paid not
for the constitution of the relationship of landlord and tenant but after that
relationship had come into existence and for its continuance.
In H. H. Maharaja Sir Bir Bikram Kishore
Manikya Bahadur v. The Province of Assam (1), a case under the Act, Harries
C.J. referred to Kamakshya Narain Singh's case (5) and held that it had to be
decided on (1)(1925) I.L.R. 53 Cal. 34.
(2) (1929) I.L.R. 9 Patna 1.
(3) I.L.R. 1945 Mad. 837.
(4) (1948) 53 C.W.N. 164.
(5) (1943) L.R. 70 I.A. 18o, 190.
1030 the facts of each case whether salami
was agricultural income or not because it was not known in respect of what transaction
the amount was received.
The Orissa High Court in S. M. Bose v.
Secretary, 'Board of Revenue (1) has held that salami is not a payment of rent
in advance nor is it income but is a payment by way of capital receipt. It was
contended before us that the Privy Council in Kamakshya Narain Singh's case (2
) based its decision on the wasting nature of the assets under the lease. But
the definition given by Lord Wright is in general terms and just describes what
the characteristics of a payment by way of salami are without any reference as
to the nature of assets under a lease.
In all these appeals before us the assessees
derived considerably large amounts of income from agricultural holdings. It is
not shown as to what the number of the holdings were but they must have been
On the other hand the number of settlements
was comparatively small a few hundreds and consisted of settlements of virgin
lands as well as of auction-purchase lands and were not derived from the same
holdings at regular intervals. This and the findings of fact given above
negative the finding as to "regularity and periodicity" of payment of
salami and also that it "arose out of business of letting out his
land." The payments by way of salami were made by the prospective lessees
anterior to the constitution of the relationship of landlord and tenant as the
price for the lessor agreeing to the parting of his rights in an agricultural
holding in favour of the proposed lessee.
In Principles of Mohamadan Law by Macnaughton
,salami is defined as;
"a free gift by way of compliment or in
return of a favour." In Wilson's Glossary the meaning given to it is:
" a complimentary present, a
douceur............ ; a present to a superior upon being introduced to him; a
gratuity or offering on receiving a lease...........
(1) A.I.R. 1955 Orissa 288.
(2) (1943) L.R. 7o I.A. 180, 190.
1031 In the Arabic-English Dictionary by
Johnson it means:
" a present on being introduced to a
superior; earnest money; a free gift from a farmer to Government on taking
lands..........." In Vol. I of Baden Powell's "Land Systems of
British India" it is stated at page 543;
".......the Zamindar, to raise money,
had sold so many taluqs or under farms for 'salami' or fees paid down Thus all
these definitions show that salami is a payment by the tenant as a present or
as price for parting by the landlord with his rights under the lease of a
holding. It is a lump sum payment as consideration for what the landlord
transfers to the tenant.
The manner in which the leases were dealt
with and the fact that 'in no case was a non-occupancy tenant evicted and his
tenure was allowed to mature into an occupancy holding shows that the leases
were in practice not so precarious as was suggested by the Board, but had an
element of stability and permanency attached to them. Therefore, when a tenant
paid salami he did so in order to get in return an estate in the land owned by
the zamindar. Salami is thus not rent and both parties have proceeded on that
basis and it could not be called revenue within the meaning of the word used in
the definition of agricultural income under s. 2(1)(a) of the Act because it
was a payment to the landlord by the tenant as a consideration for the transfer
of a right in zamindari lands owned by the landlord. It has therefore all the
characteristics of a capital payment and is not revenue.
In the result appeal No. 162 of 1955 brought
by the State of Assam is dismissed with costs throughout and the appeals
brought by the assessees in C.A. Nos. 38 to 44 of 1956 are allowed, the
judgment of the High Court set aside and the referred questions answered in the
negative. The assessees will have their costs in this court in one set and the
courts below except in appeal No. 42 of 1956 where the appellant was not
present, 1032 but it appears that she could not be served and given notice of
the hearing of the appeal and, therefore, although her appeal is allowed, as it
is based on a point common to other appeals, the parties will bear their own
costs in that appeal.
Appeal No. 162 of 1955 dismissed.
Appeals Nos. 38 to 44 of 1956 allowed.