9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (2) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with nine assessment years between 1958-59 and 1966-67. One Durga Prasad was the karta of a Hindu joint family consisting of himself and two sons-Nabin and Abhin. Durga Prasad's wife is Malati. In 1956 by an unregistered deed of partition the properties of the family were separated, but Durga Prasad continued to be holding the share of his wife as also of the minor son Abhin for convenience of possession and enjoyment. Nabin who was an adult son had separated, but Durga Prasad was also looking after the cultivation of his property. 2. The Assessing Officer as also the Appellate Authority came to hold that there was no partition and, therefore, the entire income was available to be assessed in the hands of the Assessee Durga Prasad. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal the finding regarding partition was disputed and it was contended that even if the fact of partition was conceded for the sake of argument the Assessee could still be liable under the Orissa Agricultural Income Tax Act for the entire income including that of the major son. 4. There is no dispute that the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority had not accepted the claim of partition. The Additional Agricultural Income Tax Tribunal was, however, prepared to hold relying upon the unregistered deed of partition as also the separate khatians issued in the Bhogra conversion proceedings wherein the said partition was accepted that there had been a complete partition between the father and the two sons. As the record stand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he finding as recorded, therefore, goes to show that Durga Prasad and his two sons had partitioned. In the partition one-fourth share in the property was allotted to the wife Malati. Durga Prasad was possessing the property allotted to the shares of Malati and the minor son Abhin. Nabin had his separate share, but Durga Prasad was also in cultivating possession thereof. We are not called upon in the facts of this case to find out whether the Revenue was right in including the shares of Malati and Abhin for determining the income liable for assessment in the hands of Durga Prasad. Therefore we refrain from expressing any opinion on that question. The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the property of Nabin which wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome relatable to the property allotted to Nabin would not be assessed to agricultural income tax in the hands of Durga Prasad notwithstanding the admission of Durga Prasad that he was actually possessing the property on behalf of the true owner. After all the scheme in Section 11 of the Act is for a convenient method of assessment. 8. We would accordingly answer the question referred to us by saying. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Assessee could not be made liable to agricultural income tax in regard to the income arising out of the share of Nabin Kumar by virtue of Section 11 of the Orissa Agricultural Income Tax Act. We make no order as to costs. K.B. Panda J. 9. I agree. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
