Agricultural income taxation in Pakistan has long lingered in the shadows of fiscal policy. Agriculture contributes nearly one fifth of the national GDP and sustains millions of livelihoods, yet its contribution to direct taxation is negligible. The salaried classes, urban entrepreneurs and industrialists bear the weight of taxation, while the landed aristocracy, heirs to colonial privilege, remain largely exempt. This inequity corrodes the legitimacy of the state and perpetuates a feudal order inimical to modernity.
The legal architecture is unambiguous. Agricultural income is exempt from federal taxation under Section 41 of the Income Tax Ordinance and provinces alone possess the competence to legislate and enforce such levies. Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan have enacted Agricultural Income Tax Acts, but these statutes are skeletal, riddled with exemptions and enforced with a languor that borders on abdication. Provincial boards of revenue, heirs to colonial land record offices, are ill equipped for modern fiscal administration.
The political economy of evasion is equally stark. The landed gentry, ensconced in provincial assemblies, have every incentive to dilute taxation. They invoke the plight of the small farmer as a rhetorical shield, though the statutes already exempt subsistence holdings. They plead administrative incapacity, though it is their own obstruction that starves institutions of resources. In truth, the exemption of agriculture is the last bastion of feudal privilege, a relic of colonial compromise that has metastasised into constitutional hypocrisy.
If Pakistan is to break this cycle, it must adopt a step by step workflow rooted in law yet animated by technology and political courage. The first step is digitisation of land records. The Punjab Land Records Authority has made tentative strides, but a comprehensive GIS enabled cadastre is imperative. Each parcel must be mapped, each owner linked to CNIC, each tenancy recorded. Without a reliable registry, taxation is a chimera.
The second step is classification of taxpayers. Owners, tenants, sharecroppers and corporate farms must be distinguished. The law must recognise contractual realities such as rent, batai, lease and corporate management. Only then can liability be apportioned with justice. The third step is the introduction of tiered tax regimes. Smallholders should face presumptive per acre taxation, with exemptions for subsistence. Large landowners should file income based returns, supported by procurement records. Corporate farms should submit audited accounts, integrated with corporate tax regimes.
The fourth step is third party data integration. Procurement agencies, mills, banks and input suppliers hold invaluable data. Satellite imagery can validate crop yields. These must be woven into the tax net, creating a web of verification that renders evasion difficult. The fifth step is risk based audits. Algorithms can flag anomalies such as large holdings with meagre declared income, repeated losses despite bumper yields, or discrepancies between procurement and returns. Audit teams, mobile and trained, must verify on the ground.
The sixth step is dispute resolution. Provincial tax tribunals, staffed with agricultural economists, must adjudicate disputes. Alternative dispute resolution can reduce litigation. Farmer facilitation centres must educate cultivators on exemptions and rights. The seventh step is linkage with subsidies. Compliance must be incentivised. Crop insurance, concessional loans and input subsidies should be contingent upon tax registration. Thus, taxation becomes not a burden but a gateway to benefits.
To understand the magnitude of potential revenue, one must examine provincial case studies. Punjab, the largest province, has approximately 20 million acres under cultivation. If one assumes that 30 percent of these holdings are above subsistence threshold and liable to taxation and average net income per acre is 30,000 rupees, then taxable income is 180 billion rupees. At an average effective rate of 10 percent, potential revenue is 18 billion rupees. Current collection is around 5 billion, which means Punjab realises less than one third of potential.
Sindh, with 12 million cultivated acres, has a higher concentration of large landowners. If 40 percent of holdings are taxable and average net income per acre is 35,000 rupees, taxable income is 168 billion rupees. At 10 percent, potential revenue is 16.8 billion rupees. Current collection is around 2.5 billion, which means Sindh realises less than one sixth of potential. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, with 8 million cultivated acres, has smaller average holdings. If 20 percent are taxable and average net income per acre is 25,000 rupees, taxable income is 40 billion rupees. At 10 percent, potential revenue is 4 billion rupees. Current collection is around 1 billion, which means KP realises one quarter of potential.
Balochistan, with 6 million cultivated acres, has vast tracts under low productivity. If 15 percent are taxable and average net income per acre is 20,000 rupees, taxable income is 18 billion rupees. At 10 percent, potential revenue is 1.8 billion rupees. Current collection is less than 0.5 billion, which means Balochistan realises less than one third of potential. Taken together, the four provinces could generate around 40 billion rupees annually from agricultural income tax, compared to current collection of less than 10 billion. This is a fourfold increase, sufficient to finance rural infrastructure, irrigation modernisation and climate resilience.
The provincial case studies also reveal political dynamics. In Punjab, the dominance of large landowners in the assembly has diluted enforcement. Yet the digitisation of land records offers a glimmer of hope. In Sindh, feudal elites wield immense influence, but the concentration of holdings makes taxation easier if political will exists. In KP, smallholder dominance means presumptive taxation is more appropriate. In Balochistan, low productivity and tribal politics complicate enforcement, but targeted taxation of commercial orchards and corporate farms could yield revenue.
India exempts agricultural income federally, crippling enforcement. Bangladesh failed due to elite resistance. OECD countries use satellite monitoring, progressive rates and transparency. Kenya employs tiered regimes. Brazil links rural property tax to productivity. The lesson is clear. Technology and transparency are indispensable. Political will is sine qua non. Equity requires progressive rates. Sustainability can be incentivised through taxation.
Taxation is not merely a fiscal instrument. It is a covenant between citizen and state. When agriculture, the largest sector, remains untaxed, the covenant is broken. The salaried classes, already overburdened, perceive injustice. The state, starved of revenue, cannot invest in irrigation, climate resilience, or rural infrastructure. The feudal elite, exempt from contribution, perpetuate inequality. The enforcement of agricultural income tax in Pakistan is a test of our collective resolve. It demands legal harmonisation, institutional strengthening, technological modernisation and above all, political courage. The landed aristocracy will resist, but the republic must prevail. For without equity in taxation, there can be no equity in society.
References
Chatha, F. A. (2024). Agriculture income tax in Punjab: Potential impediments and policy suggestions. Journal of Pakistan Administration, 45(1). Retrieved from https://journal.nspp.gov.pk/index.php/jpa/article/view/75
Salam, A. (2022). Taxation of agricultural incomes in Pakistan: Conceptual issues, data challenges and empirical estimates. Business Review, 17(2), 72–92. https://doi.org/10.54784/1990-6587.1457
Salam, A. (2022). Taxation of agricultural incomes in Pakistan: Conceptual issues, data challenges and empirical estimates. Business Review, 17(2). Retrieved from https://ir.iba.edu.pk/businessreview/vol17/iss2/6/
World Bank. (2020). Pakistan revenue mobilization: Tax policy and administration reforms. Washington, DC: World Bank.
OECD. (2019). Taxation of agricultural incomes: Comparative practices. Paris: OECD Publishing.
FAO. (2018). Taxation and agriculture: Global experiences. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.