9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Whether a joint assessment could be made in law in respect of the agricultural income of the estate held by an individual as reversioner and of the ancestral estate held for himself and his sons? Analysis: The judgment delivered by the High Court of Allahabad pertained to a reference made by the Agricultural Income-tax Revision Board under the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948. The case involved the assessment of agricultural income for Fasli years 1355 to 1359. Initially, the assessing authority treated the properties as joint for taxation purposes, but upon appeal and remand, assessed them separately. The Board of Revenue later directed fresh assessment, considering the assessee as one unit. This decision was challenged, leading to the current reference. The court examined the lineage and ownership of the estates in question, emphasizing the distinction between ancestral property and property acquired through reversion. The judgment highlighted the legal principles regarding ancestral property inheritance under Hindu Law, indicating that property inherited from collaterals or females is considered separate property, not ancestral. The court scrutinized the relevant sections of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, particularly focusing on the definition of "person" to include Hindu undivided families as taxable units. The court concluded that the Board's decision to treat the two estates as one unit for taxation was legally flawed. It emphasized that the Hindu undivided family and the individual had separate assessable entities under the Act. Section 10 of the Act, which deals with the assessment of income of undivided Hindu families, was clarified to not permit the aggregation of income from the family with that of individual coparceners. The court held that the income from the ancestral property, belonging to the Hindu undivided family, should not be combined with the income from the property acquired through reversion, which was the individual's separate property. In the final ruling, the court answered the referred question in the negative, favoring the assessee and ruling against the department. The assessee was awarded costs, and the judgment clarified the distinct treatment required for ancestral property income and individual property income under the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948.
|
