Judgment :- SETHURAMAN J. At the instance of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, the following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the urban land tax paid can be said to fall for deduction while computing the income from property for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1968-69 ?" The assessee derived income from property which is assessed to tax under sections 23 to 27 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The assessee claimed for the assessment year 1964-65 deduction of a sum of Rs. 2, 826 as the urban land tax payable. There were similar claims for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1968-69. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the assessee's claim for deduction and, therefore, the assessee contested the disallowance before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who confirmed the disallowance. The assessee, thereafter, took up the matter on appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and rested the claim on the provisions of section 24(1)(v) and section 24(1)(vii). The Appellate Tribunal accepted the claim of the assessee for allowance under section 24(1)(vii), while rejecting the claim of the assessee under section 24(1)(v) and, therefore, the department, feeling aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, has come on reference raising the question extracted already As pointed out already, the Appellate Tribunal had rejected the claim of the assessee based on section 24(1)(v) which provides for deduction of ground-rent where the property is subject to a ground-rent. The assessee has not come up on reference against this part of the decision of the Tribunal. So, we have solely to consider the admissibility of the claim of the assessee based on section 24(1)(vii). That provision, so far as it is material, rules as follows "Income chargeable under the head ' Income from house property ' shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be computed after making the following deductions, namely :-- (vii) any sums paid on account of land revenue......." * There were certain additions made to this provision by the Finance Act of 1968, with effect from the 1st of April, 1969. As we are concerned only with the assessment years prior to April 1, 1969, the provision as unamended would apply to this case and we have extracted above the unamended provision The short point for consideration is whether the assessee had paid any amount on account of land revenue It is not disputed by the assessee that this amount had been paid under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966. That Act was enacted to provide for the levy of tax on urban lands in this State. Section 5 of that Act provides that, subject to the other provisions contained in that Act, there shall be levied and collected for every Fasli year commencing from the date of the commencement of that Act, a tax on urban land (referred to as the urban land tax) from the owner of such urban land at the rate specified in the section. This tax is levied on the market value of the urban land. Section 18 provides that where the owner of any urban land is himself not the occupier thereof and is in default of payment of the urban land tax, such tax may be recovered from the occupier of such urban land in the manner prescribed. Any occupier who has paid the urban land tax under sub-section (1) of section 18 is entitled to deduct the amount so paid from the amount of rent or any other sum due from time to time to the owner or intermediary, if any. Any occupier who has paid the urban land tax under sub-section (1) of section 18 is entitled to deduct the amount so paid from the amount of rent or any other sum due from time to time to the owner or intermediary, if any. Section 23 of that Act, which is material in this case, runs as follows "The urban land tax payable under this Act in respect of any urban land shall be in lieu of-- (i) the ryotwari assessment ; (ii) the assessment levied under the Madras Inams (Assessment) Act, 1956 (Madras Act XL of 1956), or under the Andhra Inams (Assessment) Act, 1955 (Andhra Act XVII of 1955) ; (iii) the ground-rent ; (iv) the quit-rent ; (v) any amount due under the Madras City Land Revenue Act, 1851 (Central Act XII of 1851) ; (vi) such other amount as the Government may, by special order, specify, payable in respect of such land ; but shall be in addition to any tax on such land payable under any other law for the time being in force." * On these statutory provisions, the learned standing counsel for the revenue contended that in the present case the amount paid could not be said to be land revenue, because section 23 clearly provides that it is in lieu of land revenue due under the Madras City Land Revenue Act, 1851. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the phrase "in lieu of" used in section 23 would show that the amount paid by the assessee takes only the place of land revenue land, therefore, that will be land revenue as such. Learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that section 24(i)(vii) of the Act uses the words "any sums paid on account of land revenue" and the peculiar expression "on account of" would show that it need not necessarily be land revenue, but it could be any other tax also which takes the place of land revenue. Learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that section 24(i)(vii) of the Act uses the words "any sums paid on account of land revenue" and the peculiar expression "on account of" would show that it need not necessarily be land revenue, but it could be any other tax also which takes the place of land revenue. We have, therefore, to examine these submissions advanced by the learned counsel The phrase "in lieu of" used in section 23 of the Urban Land Tax Act clearly goes to show that the tax levied under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966, is different from the tax payable under the Madras City Land Revenue Act, 1851, under which alone the assessee was, prior to the enactment of this Act, paying the land revenue to the Government. When one enactment substitutes the levy under another enactment, it follows that the substituted levy cannot be taken as the same as the levy which prevailed earlier. Otherwise, there will be no meaning in the substitution. If the two are not different, then appropriate provision would have been made in section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Act itself. Section 23 has the effect of abolishing land revenue as far as the urban lands are concerned and levying tax on the market value of such land. The two legislations are so wholly different that it is not possible, to take the one, viz., the urban land tax, as equivalent to the land revenue for purposes of deduction under section 24(1)(vii) of the ActThe character or concept of land revenue has been examined in a decision of this court in Gopalan v. State of Madras. That was a case in which the concept of the levy and assessment of land revenue on ryotwari lands in the light of article 265 of the Constitution of India was gone into. In the course of the judgment, Ramachandra Ayyar J. (as he then was) observed: "It is well-known that the system of permanent settlement of Lord Cornwallis was introduced only in a few places in the old Madras Presidency and that the board of directors of the East India Company prohibited its extension to the rest of the presidency. In the course of the judgment, Ramachandra Ayyar J. (as he then was) observed: "It is well-known that the system of permanent settlement of Lord Cornwallis was introduced only in a few places in the old Madras Presidency and that the board of directors of the East India Company prohibited its extension to the rest of the presidency. Thereafter collection of revenue was by way of village settlement or by granting lease of the whole villages to a middleman that is to a renter or headman or to a joint body of inhabitants. That system of collection of land revenue was not found satisfactory and the ryotwari system of Sir Thomas Munroe was adopted between 1812 and 1818. It was conceived as a system of land revenue administration without the middleman, the ryots being treated as proprietors of their holdings and liable to pay assessment direct to the Government. The assessment, however, was not fixed either in regard to the land or in regard to the period. Arable lands were classified according to the nature of the soil and assessment was fixed according to the quality and extent of the land. Each field or holding was valued separately and the holder was free to pay the revenue and keep the field or free himself by giving it up as he pleased. (Baden-Powell's Land System in British India, volume 3, page 5). Settlements of revenue are made for such periods as the Government fixed for each district and they are notified in the District Gazette by the Collector. Ordinarily, they are being made once in thirty years. The standing orders of the Board of Revenue contain the basis, rates and methods of assessment. Standing Order 1, rule 3, states that the assessment fixed represents the commuted value of the Government's share of the surface cultivation." * The above passage goes to show that the land revenue represents only the share of the income of the Government from the land. But the tax levied here is on the capital or market value and, therefore, it cannot be the same as land revenue The legality of the levy of urban land tax was challenged before a Full Bench of this court in V. Pattabhiraman v. Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax 1971 AIR(Mad) 61, 68 [FB]. But the tax levied here is on the capital or market value and, therefore, it cannot be the same as land revenue The legality of the levy of urban land tax was challenged before a Full Bench of this court in V. Pattabhiraman v. Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax 1971 AIR(Mad) 61, 68 [FB]. In that case, it was pointed out by Anantanarayanan C. J. as follows "As I have already pointed out, the Supreme Court has held that taxes on such lands do fall under entry 49 (Raja Jagannath Baksh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh) : 'land revenue' is, historically speaking, a totally different concept of the share of the State in the produce of land, and can have no relationship to taxes on urban land, whether on market or capital value, or an annual yield, which form and have always formed, a clear species of legislation under entry 49." * This part of the judgment of the Full Bench is not affected by the pronouncement of the Supreme Court on appeal against the said decision. It may be remembered that entry 45 of List II of Schedule VII relates to assessment of land revenue including assessment and collection of revenue, the maintenance of land records, survey for revenue purposes and records of rights and alienations of revenue. Entry 49 relates to taxes on land and buildings. So, the two entries are different and the fact that the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax was actually upheld on the ground that it falls within entry 49 of List II of Schedule VII to the Constitution, in Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax v. Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. goes to show that the constitutionality thereof was not rested on entry 45. If it was the same as the land revenue, then the courts would have rested the constitutional validity of the tax on entry 45 itselfIn fact, the question as to whether a similar deduction could be allowed has been the subject of consideration in an early decision of this court in C. K. Mamad Keyi v. Commissioner of Income-tax. That was a case where the assessee claimed, in his income-tax assessment, deduction for the urban immovable property tax levied on immovable property situate in the City of Bombay, under the Bombay Finance Act, 1932, as amended subsequently. That was a case where the assessee claimed, in his income-tax assessment, deduction for the urban immovable property tax levied on immovable property situate in the City of Bombay, under the Bombay Finance Act, 1932, as amended subsequently. This court held that the tax levied under the Bombay Finance Act, 1932, as amended subsequently, was not land revenue so as to be eligible for deduction under section 9(1)(v)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which corresponded to section 24(1)(vii) of the Act. Though some doubt has been cast on this decision by the Supreme Court in New Piece Goods Bazar Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax this part of the decision is not in any way affected by the later pronouncement of the Supreme Court. In fact, the Supreme Court itself, at page 523 of the above decision, has observed that municipal taxes do not stand on the same footing as land revenue, thereby showing that land revenue cannot be the same as urban land tax under consideration We are, therefore, satisfied that the Tribunal was wrong in upholding the assessee's claim under section 24(1)(vii) of the Act The question is answered in the negative and against the assessee. The revenue will be entitled to its costs. Counsel's fee, Rs. 500.