9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (6) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... individual capacity and certain other lands were held by him in his capacity as manager of the Hindu undivided family. According to the petitioner, he got certain lands by way of settlement directly from his grandfather and another set of lands he got in a partition between his father, himself and his brothers. The latter category, according to the petitioner, must be treated to be held by him as karta of the Hindu undivided family while the former category must be treated as his individual holding. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer clubbed both the categories of lands and passed a single assessment order under section 65 of the Act. Aggrieved by that order of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, the petitioner preferred a revision to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nclusion of the respondent, the petitioner initially filed Writ Petitions Nos. 694 and 695 of 1974. When the writ petitions came up for final hearing, it appears, Mohan J. (as he then was), was of the view that the petitioners should have filed Tax Revision Cases against the order of the respondent, and without resorting to the alternative statutory remedy, the petitioner will not be permitted to proceed with the writ petitions. Immediately, the petitioner filed W. M. P. Nos. 4736 and 4737 of 1978 for converting the writ petitions into tax cases. Accordingly, the above two tax cases (revision) came to be filed. Before going into the real question, we have to find out whether the proper remedy available to the petitioners is by way of fili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew we propose to take, we do not think we need go into this question at this stage. It is seen from the order of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer that he has not applied his mind regarding the contentions of the assessee that the two holdings held by him are distinct and different. The view taken by the Commissioner that the lands obtained by the petitioner/assessee under partition must be treated as his individual holding is not correct. Admittedly, the lands obtained by the petitioner/assessee under the partition are ancestral in character and, as such, the petitioner's sons are entitled to have a share by birth. That being the position, the observation of the Commissioner extracted above is not correct and, therefore, while sustaini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
