1941 (2) TMI 15

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ry has held that he is not an agriculturist, firstly because he has been assessed to Income Tax under proviso (A) to Section 3 and secondly because he has paid house tax under proviso (C). We may say at once that the second reason cannot be substantiated. The language of proviso (C) is that he should be assessed to house-tax. The only evidence is an admission by the appellant that he had gifted ce .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... come Tax within the meaning of the proviso (A). It seems to us impossible to read the expression assessed to Income Tax in the present case in so narrow a sense. It cannot be denied that when the income of a partnership is assessed to tax under the Act what is really assessed is nothing less than the income of the individual partners; and we think that to say that a person has been assessed to Inc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the case that the appellant made any such application for refund. The result is that whether his income in fact fell below the taxable minimum or not it has undoubtedly been subjected to Income Tax and in our opinion there can be no doubt that he comes within proviso (A) of Section 3. He cannot therefore be deemed to be an agriculturist or entitled to the privileges of the Act. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X