9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (7) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with regard to the assessment year in question, the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax in exercise of his powers under section 34 of the Act suo motu revised the order of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer and held that under the provisions of section 9(2)(a)(iii) of the Act read with the proviso to section 65(7), the lands settled on the wife were to be included in the lands retained by the petitioner herein for the purpose of calculating the composition amount. Accordingly, he directed the Agricultural Income-tax Officer to redetermine the amount payable by the assessee-petitioner. It is this order which is sought to be revised under section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. Section 9(2)(a)(iii) of the Act s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds that section 9(2)(a)(iii) of the Act does not authorise the authorities to club the holding of the wife with the holding of the husband and it merely authorises the inclusion of the income with that of the husband. He further contends that in proceedings under section 65 of the Act where no assessment to tax is made and only the holder of the land agrees to pay tax on composition basis at the rates prescribed in the schedule to the Act, there is no power to club the holding of the wife, though she obtained it by way of settlement from the husband, with the holding of the husband. We are unable to accept this argument. The very language contained in the proviso to section 65 which we have extracted, namely, " as far as may be ", will cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld mean that for the purpose of composition, the land in the assessee's possession should be deemed to be augmented by the land gifted to his wife and to his minor child other than a married daughter." The above observation of the Bench is directly in point and is directly opposed to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner strongly relied on another decision of this court in K. P. Al. Abdul Majeed v. Assistant Agricultural Income-tax Officer [1970] 78 ITR 124 (Mad). Though it is not necessary for us to express our opinion as to the correctness or otherwise of that decision, it is enough to point out that that decision did not deal with section 65 at all and it dealt with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
