THUPPAN NAMBUDIRIPAD Vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER
Click here to view full judgement.
Govindan Nair, J. -
(1.)THE Petitioner is a member of a Hindu undivided Namboodiri family. He questions the assessment to agricultural income -tax and super -tax imposed on his family for the year 1959 -60 by the assessment order, Ext. P. 5. The main complaint is that Section 3 (4) of the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950, has not been complied with in computing the tax. That section is in these terms :
3(4) In the case of an undivided Hindu family consisting of brothers only or of a brother or brothers and the son or sons of a brother or brothers and whose agricultural income exceeds six thousand rupees, the tax shall be assessed at the average rate applicable to the share of income due to a brother or to six thousand rupees, whichever is higher.
I am leaving out the Explanation to the section as it is not relevant.
This family consisted of eleven members. It is admitted that apart from brother or brothers and their sons, there are female members in the family. In the case of a Namboodiri family, the females in the family are full members of the family like male members. Section 3 (4), I think, will apply only to cases where the family consists of brother or brothers and the son or sons of a brother or brothers alone and not when there are other members who do not fall within the category of members mentioned in the section. But reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in O.P. Nos. 519, 818, 1260, 1409 & 1411 of 1959 and 82 of 1960. The order in that decision is a very short one and reads as follows :
The learned Government Pleader concedes that S. 3 (3) of the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950, will apply to all Namboodiri families whether partible or not. It is also conceded that S. 3(4) will apply to 'partible Namboodiri families and that the presence of women in a family will not preclude its application. The learned Government Pleader also submits that Ss. 3 (3) and 3 (4) are not cumulative and that in cases where S. 3 (4) applies, S. 3 (3) will not apply.
In the light of the concession recorded above, these petitions are not pressed and are hereby dismissed. No costs.
It is seen that a concession has been made that Section 3 (4) would apply to partible Namboodiri families and that the presence of women in a family will not preclude its application. The decision is based entirely on the concession so made. So this court has not decided the question.
(2.)I am unable to accept the contention that Section 3 (4) can apply when there are members other than brother or brothers and the son or sons of a brother or brothers in the family. Section 3 (4) is, therefore, not applicable.
The next contention raised is that after the Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the first order of assessment, the matter has been dealt with not by the identical officer but by the Kottayam Officer. It is said that the Kottayam Officer has also jurisdiction over the area from which this case arises. I do not think that there is any force in this contention.
(3.)THE assessee also relied on a partition deed. This is dated 17 -8 -1958. The corresponding date according to the Malabar Era is Chipgom 1,1134. The accounting period relating to the assessment year 1959 -60 is the period ending on 31 -12 -1133. The alleged partition having taken place after the expiry of the accounting period, I do not think it has any relevancy in computing the income of the family for the assessment year 1959 -60 relating to the accounting period ending on 31 -12 -1133. I see no merit in this writ application and I dismiss it, but make no order as to costs.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.