9911796707
TMI Blog1956 (8) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed a return, in respect of the agricultural income of 1355 Fasli on a sheet of paper, and not in the prescribed form, along with a petition stating therein that as the estate was under the receiver, he was submitting the return on the total agricultural income on the basis of papers supplied by the receiver, and that at the time of the examination of accounts he would explain the position in regard to the income and expenditure shown in the return. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Monghyr, on the 7th August, 1950, assessed the petitioner to pay the agricultural income-tax amounting to ₹ 20,290-13-0. Against this order of assessment, the assessee carried an appeal to the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Bhagalpur, which was heard and disposed of by the Additional Commissioner, by an order dated the 7th November, 1951. The learned Additional Commissioner overruled the objection of the petitioner that he was not liable to be taxed, because in the accounting period 1355 Fasli, the year of assessment of which was 1950-51, the estate was in possession of the receiver. The assessee, thereafter, moved the Board in revision against the aforesaid order. The Board by i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was added in 1954, but we are not concerned with it in the present case. Mr. Rajeshwari Prasad contends that since the word person , mentioned in section 3 of the Act, includes a receiver also, according to the definition of section 2(m) it is the receiver who is the person liable to be taxed under section 3 of the Act. He has reinforced his argument by relying on section 13 of the Act. Section 13 of the Act is in these terms: 13. Where any person holds land, from which agricultural income is derived, as a common manager appointed under any law for the time being in force or under any agreement or as receiver, administrator or the like on behalf of persons jointly interested in such land or in the agricultural income derived therefrom, the aggregate of the sums payable as agricultural income-tax by each person on the agricultural income derived from such land and received by him shall be assessed on such common manager, receiver, administrator or the like, and he shall be deemed to be the assessee in respect of the agricultural income-tax so payable by each such person and shall be liable to pay the same. The argument put forward by Mr. Rajeshwari Prasad is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the accounting period and also at the time of assessment. Section 13 cannot be construed so as to mean that the receiver is to be assessed to tax on the agricultural income derived from land which was in his possession during the accounting period, but which is not in his possession during the period of assessment, or at the time of the actual assessment. If the contention of Mr. Rajeshwari Prasad be accepted, it will lead to strange results. Suppose, the agricultural income-tax is to be assessed on a discharged receiver, because he was in possession during the accounting period as a receiver, then in such case it would be impossible to realise the tax from the receiver personally, because he was in possession as a receiver in a representative capacity, and not in his personal capacity and, therefore, he cannot be made liable for such agricultural income-tax personally. As pointed out by my Lord the Chief Justice in course of the argument, suppose that the receiver is dead, and there is no other receiver at the time of the assessment, in that case, the assessment cannot be made on a dead person at all, and, as a such, there will be no person who will be liable to be taxed. Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year, was on behalf of only one person, namely, the petitioner alone. To such a case, section 13 can have no application at all. Mr. Rajeshwari Prasad placed strong reliance on the case of A.W. Williams v. W.M.G. Singer and Others [1920] 7 Tax Cas. 387 particularly on the observation of Viscount Cave at page 411. But that was made with reference to the interpretation of section 100 of the Income-tax Act of 1842 in the context of other sections of English income-tax statutes. The present case is entirely different and that observation of Lord Cave has no application. The case of Province of Bihar v. Rani Bhubneshwari Kuer [1947] 15 I.T.R. 477, also relied upon by Mr. Rajeshwari Prasad, has no application, because that was also a case in which the assessee had created a trust in respect of her entire estate vesting the estate in the Board of Trustees which was in management of the estate at the date of the assessment, and, therefore, it was held by Agarwala, Acting Chief Justice, with whom Manohar Lall, J., also agreed in a concurring judgment that the Board of Trustees is a person within the meaning of section 2(m) and as such it is liable to be charged for income-tax on its a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
