9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Assessment of agricultural income tax on non-resident Indian's lands, appointment of agent for assessment, validity of assessments, recovery proceedings, liability of agent and principal.
Analysis: The petitioner, a non-resident Indian, owns agricultural lands in Kerala managed by his brother's wife, Marykutty. The assessing authority completed assessments under the Agricultural Income-tax Act on the income from the lands without notice to the petitioner, treating another individual, M. P. George, as the petitioner's agent for assessment purposes. The petitioner challenges these assessments and the subsequent demand for payment. The first issue raised by the petitioner is that M. P. George was not his agent, and if he was, the entire amount due should be recovered from George as per Section 11 of the Act. The respondents argue that George was managing the estate on behalf of the petitioner, as evidenced by disclosures made by George to the assessing authority. Section 11 of the Act outlines the procedure for assessing agricultural income due from lands owned by non-residents. It allows for the charge to be made in the name of the owner or the agent, with the agent deemed the assessee for all purposes of the Act. The assessing authority must serve a notice on the agent to treat him as the agent of the non-resident, which was done in this case with M. P. George. The court notes a controversy between the parties regarding whether George or Marykutty was managing the estate. However, without conclusive evidence, the court cannot determine who was in management. The court emphasizes that if George is the agent, the assessments made with notice to him are valid under Section 11(1) of the Act. The petitioner argues that the amounts assessed should only be recovered from George, not from him as the principal. However, the court interprets Section 11(1) as deeming the agent also an assessee under the Act, without absolving the principal from liability. The court concludes that the proceedings for recovery against the petitioner are proper and valid, as the liability of the principal continues under the statute. No other grounds were raised in the petition, leading the court to dismiss it without costs.
|
