R.S.PATHAK, J. - (1.) THIS is a reference made under S. 24(2) of the U. P. Agrl. IT Act for the opinion of this Court on the following question : "(1) Is the society a 'person' within the meaning of cl. (11) of S. 2 of the U.P. Agrl. IT Act ? (2) If it is a 'person', is it chargeable with agricultural income -tax directly on the total income or only as a common manager under S. 11 of the Act ?"
(2.) IN 1948 a number of plots of land were purchased jointly by 23 persons, whose shares were specified in the land. The following year they formed a co -operative society which was registered under the Co -operative Societies Act under the name of Naya Basera Bhatia Farms, Juguru Nagar, Sahkari Samiti. It is admitted that the society cultivated the land belonging to its members and marketed the produce. The profits were then distributed by the society among its members. For the assessment year 1360 Fasli the society was assessed to agricultural income -tax on the income from the produce obtained by cultivation. There was an appeal by the society before the CIT who dismissed it. A revision application was then filed by the society and two contentions were raised before the Revision Board. It was contended that the assessee was not an association of individuals and, therefore, not a "person" within the meaning of S. 2(11) of the Act. It was also contended that the provisions of S. 11 were applicable inasmuch as the assessee acted as a common manager on behalf of its members in cultivating the land. Both these contentions were rejected. Learned counsel for the assessee has submitted before us that the assessee is a registered co - operative society and is not an association of individuals and, therefore, does not fall within the definition of "person". He urges that having become a corporate body by virtue of registration under the Co -operative Societies Act it can no longer be considered as an association of individuals. It is well settled that a BOI, whether corporate or incorporate, constitutes an association of individuals. That expression has been used in the widest sense in S. 2(11). That is also clear if reference be had to S. 4 of the Act where provision is made for determining the minimum limit above which agricultural income becomes taxable, and it has been declared that "agricultural income of the previous year exceeds Rs. 4,200, ... or, in the case of any society, trust or other association of individuals, such higher figure as may be prescribed." The society has, therefore, been treated as an association of individuals. In Halsbury's Laws of England, the law relating to companies contains the following statement. "The word 'company' imports an association of a number of individuals formed for some common purpose. Such an association may be incorporated (that is, a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal) or it may be unincorporated..."
(3.) A company, in India, is incorporated by registration under the Companies Act upon the fulfilment of the formalities required by law, a religious or charitable society is incorporated by registration under the Societies Registration Act, 1865, and a co -operation society is incorporated by registration under the Co -operative Societies Act, 1912. All these are associations of individuals in the generic sense. Learned counsel also contends that the society was not a person because it did not either own the land nor held it. While it does appear from the facts before us that the society did not own the land, we find it difficult to accept the contention that it did not hold it. It cultivated the land, and, therefore, necessarily was in possession of it. There is nothing to show that its possession was restricted by limitation. Learned counsel urges that before the society can be said to hold the land, it must enjoy an interest in the land. In our opinion, the enjoyment of such interest is wholly unnecessary. The definition of "person" contemplates that the land can be held by a manager, among others. A manager is merely an agent and has no interest in the land. Our answer to question No. 1 is therefore, in the affirmative.;