9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (10) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lands. The petitioners have been assessed to income-tax and wealth-tax, on the basis of the status of individuals even though some of the properties have not been actually divided by metes and bounds. They have been treated as having specific shares in the properties. The petitioners had appointed one K. M. Muniswamappa, the son-in-law of the deceased, K. C. Ramaiah, as the power-of-attorney holder to manage the properties and other affairs pertaining to the petitioners' family and the income derived from agricultural properties was divided among them equally. For the assessment years above mentioned, the Agri. ITO proposed to assess them in what is stated as status of " tenants-in-common " ; what he intended to do is clear from his order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ked out on the basis that the entire income from the property should be taken as one unit is erroneous. Mr. Mir Noor Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that even on the basis that the petitioners were treated as tenants-in-common, the proper provision that will be applicable is s. 10(1)(a) of the Act and the order of the Agri. ITO is not warranted by law. He has relied upon the decision of this court in the case of B.T.R. Punja v. Commr. of Agrl. LT. [1967] 63 ITR 442 (Mys) and also the Full Bench decision of this court in the case of State of Karnataka v. C. P. Chandrasekher [1979] 116 ITR 84. The petitioners succeeded to the estate of K. C. Ramaiah and they had definite shares in the properties. The averments in the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefit of others, agricultural income-tax shall be assessed on the total agricultural income derived from such land at the rate which would be applicable if such person had held the land exclusively for his own benefit." It is seen from the provisions in s. 10(1)(a) of the Act that in the case of properties in a case where the manager has been appointed by agreement of the parties, it is open to the assessing authorities to make an assessment on such manager, but the assessment would have to be made in like manner and for the same amount as it would be leviable upon and recoverable from the person on whose behalf such agricultural income is receivable and all the provisions of the Act would apply accordingly. In effect, the income of ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there was no such inconsistency and held that s. 10(2)(a) would be attracted if a case did not fall under s. 10(1)(a) of the Act. In Punja's case [1967] 63 ITR 442 (Kar) a manager had been appointed to manage the estate under a will in which the shares of the legatees had been specified. In those circumstances, this court held that s. 10(1)(a) of the Act was also attracted. It was observed therein that : " If that manager managed the property which produced agricultural income, the clear meaning of section 10(1)(a) is that the income of each one of the persons on whose behalf there was such management is what could be assessed." In the light of the aforesaid decisions of this court, it is clear that what the Agri. ITO has done in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
